Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Was Paul Watson shot by a Japanese sniper? (xpost from GD)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:47 AM
Original message
Was Paul Watson shot by a Japanese sniper? (xpost from GD)
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 09:19 AM by GliderGuider
The original post on GD was from Omaha Steve: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Given all the hoo-hah on E/E over the shooting, I thought it might be interesting to some people here.

Another person who wrote me was Allison Lance Watson. She forwarded me an email to Capt. Watson written by Marc Gaede, an accomplished and respected anthropologist, author and photographer, among other things. With permission from both Allison and Marc, here is what Marc wrote:

--------------------------------------

"Paul,

"I feel it important to point out a few things that I see in your shooting. As you know, this is a subject I know a lot about.

"You were shot by a sniper with a rifle and with a special bullet. The vest that protected you is meant for pistol rounds, not high velocity military bullets. Had you been shot with a military rifle cartage, you could be dead. Had you not been waring the vest, you most certainly been dead by a massive untreatable wound, which is what they intended.

"By what I see in the pictures, the compression of the bullet means it was a soft lead 'Dumb-Dumb' round. Because of the tissue destruction these bullets cause, they were banned for military use by the Hague Convention of 1899 although most people now call it the Geneva Convention. All militaries conform to the convention because no one wants to go there due to the unspeakable carnage they would cause. Even the Nazi SS didn't use Dumb-Dumbs.

"The Japanese Coast Guard (or a special agent - AM) shot you with a Dumb-Dumb bullet which is in violation of the Geneva (Hague) Convention because the JCG is part of the military. This is significant because the world's military will pay attention that the Japanese military used Dumb-Dumbs. It may be one shot, but it is significant and governments will pay attention.

"Next, I want to point out that this was not a a knee-jerk reaction to shoot you. I was the best shot in HQ Company at Camp Pendleton for two years (1966-67), and couldn't have done this in my prime. Apparently, you were shot from high to low involving two moving ships on the high seas. Also, you were probably moving at random, and the shot was within three inches of your heart. This sniper practiced this shot for months back in Japan , and no doubt, they used a moving target ship that was lower than the moving shooting platform, and they practiced in varying wind, distance, and seas to perfect every situation. I'm guessing they brought in a Japanese Marine sniper because Coast Guards don't have this kind of talent. The flash-bang grenades were used to cover the rifle shot but should be audible on tape. Like earthquakes, gunshots will show up electronically from all the other noise. There might be other shots, but I don't think so, it was just one shot, I think.

"The Dumb-Dumb bullet is a give-away because it was chosen specially to kill. No pistol shooter in the world could have made this shot, it had to have come from a rifle and a sniper rifle for sure. The Dumb-Dumb was caught by your vest so it was low velocity such as fired by most pistols. Why would the JCG fire a low velocity Dumb-Dumb at your heart? Well, they didn't know you had the "Second Chance" vest on under your Mustang suit. The low velocity Dumb-Dumb should have blown a 5" hole in your chest and you should have died quickly from massive blood loss. Every black powder (low velocity soft lead bullet) hunter knows the low velocity allows the bullet to expand within the animal causing extreme damage. High velocity bullets go through too fast for maximum destruction.

"So this was a special bullet, probably hand loaded, for you. Low velocity, soft lead for a modern military rifle. I don't believe I have ever seen such ammunition for sale in my life.

"Ok, the Whale Gods were with you. Everyone now knows you have a cop vest under your suit, so you can expect to get shot next time with a high velocity full-metal-jacket round which will go through your vest. The only vest that can help you is the ceramic-plate armor. You might look into "Dragon Skin," which is what most our Iraqi troops want but can't get. When you are outside exposed in confrontation, keep moving, don't stop but for a few seconds and stay out-of-view as much as possible.

"Make no mistake, the Japs intended to kill you.

"Return safe,

Marc"

--------------------------------------------------

Obviously, this cannot be verified until the forensic report comes out, but I deem it a highly credible assessment based on intimate knowledge and experience on the subject matter. If this doesn't pan out, it would at least be a sound piece of technical analysis, and should give pause to skeptics, nay-sayers and conspiracy theorists.

A parting word of advice to all whalers and whaling-supporters: For you to assassinate Capt. Watson, or anyone on board the Steve Irwin, or anyone in the whaling movement, is tantamount to you committing Kamikaze, again. Maybe you've forgotten, but it didn't work when you tried it the the last time.

Anthony


Anthony Marr, founder
Heal Our Planet Earth (HOPE)
www.HOPE-CARE.org
www.MySpace.com/AnthonyMarr
www.ARConference.org
__._,_.___

Obviously, only an impartial forensic analysis of the bullet will tell the story, but this assessment is disturbing, to say the least. Note that the type of bullet Gaede speculates was used is actually called a dumdum. Dumb-Dumb applies to the people who tried to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. Our disregard for the Geneva Conventions coming home to roost?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. There are a few errors in that knowledgable analysis
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 09:45 AM by kristopher
First, dumdums. Anyone can either drill a hole in the tip of the round or cut an X in the tip and viola' you have a dumdum.

The rounds used in the high powered military rifles today are a humdred times worse than dumdums. They are designed to travel at extremely high velocities thus storing large amounts of kinetic energy. You might also be interested to know that they don't spin like rifled bullets, they tumble end over end. When they hit, the kinetic force buildup and compression wave causes massive tissue damage far in excess of the size of the wound. The tumbling action means the round seldom travels straight line once it enters the body. It might go straigh into the upper right torso and exit the lower left buttock - destroying everything along the way.

There have been a few changes since 66-67 that the analyst doesn't seem to be up on.

I agree, lets wait for the official forensics investigation. The idea that the Japanese would try to assassinate Watson just doesn't pass the smell test. They have had ample reason and opportunity for one of their Navy ships to arrest him and lock his ass up if they wanted to get him out of the way.

I can't see how a plan to "assassinate" him on the open wea with no one else to blame would be something they would prefer to locking him up.

Frankly though, it fits precisely with Watson's need to deliver an escalating conflict to his cash base while he casts himself as the Brave Martyr.

It is obvious that a scenario where he manufactures a PR stunt matches his tactics and previous strategies perfectly.

If the Japanese shoot him, they aren't going to do it in secret. That is what can happen when someone engages in piracy.

No I just don't see a secret assassination attempt as a high probability option. I do see him staging it to stoke the donation engine though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I don't know what to think about you, kristopher
Sometimes you sound so reasonable, then other times (like any time someone mentions Paul Watson) you sound flat-out nuts.

How is the idea of Watson staging his own attempted assassination reasonable? He's getting plenty of publicity and plenty of money without doing something so monumentally weird. He has no history of doing anything like that. I agree that it doesn't make much sense for the Japanese to try something so stupid either, but that sure did look like a deformed soft lead slug I saw being dug out of his vest in the video.

The notion of using a soft lead expanding slug instead of a tumbling military round is consistent with an assassination attempt using a low-velocity round from a rifle with a sound suppressor. I understand those gizmos don't work well with high velocity ammunition. OTOH, I'm not a gunner, so WTFDIK? The use of flash-bangs is also suspiciously convenient.

I don't see what either side would get out of such an action. The difficulty of the shot would make it appear that it had to have been a well trained and sanctioned shooter, and that means government involvement. And that's about as strange as the idea that Watson had one of his own people do it, or planted it on himself. All around, this one is bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. A lot of people tell me that.
Well, lets look at what would be involved to fake it. A vest, a gun, shoot the vest and haul it with you. Then produce it and point to the planted bullet.

If he was targeted for assassination and hadn't been wearing the vest, he would have been killed, right? Again, who the hell else did the Japanese expect it to be blamed on?


Also the quality of that vest worries me; if we believe the report, that thing won't stop a military round, right?

Why would he wear it then???

Did he expect that the danger would not come from the current military arms that are obviously there? But is just good enough to stop the round from a weapon he didn't know they would be using. I mean really; he's wearing a vest that doesn't protect from the guns that are the most likely to be fired at him if there is an act of violence against the Japanese. Yet it DOES just happen to protect from the gun they use to covertly assassinate him.


And I don't think your exactly on target regarding the japanese using an older slower velocity round to accomplish a sniping job from the deck of one erratically moving ship to hit a target moving in a different erratic pattern. I'm just guessing that you are going to go with the high velocity round with a flat arc. Less travel time means less time for the target and shooter to become unaligned.

The silencer is a red herring. They do have them for high velocity sniper rifles and the OP claims they used the flash bangs to cover the sound of the shot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. French intelligence agents bombed and sank the Rainbow Warrior (Greenpeace) in Auckland harbor
These things do happen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "Operation Satanic" - killed photographer Fernando Pereira
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior

<snip>

The Rainbow Warrior, then captained by Peter Willcox, was sabotaged and sunk just before midnight NZST (1pm BST, 8am EDT) on July 10, 1985 by two explosive devices attached to the hull by operatives of the French intelligence service (DGSE). One of the twelve people on board, photographer Fernando Pereira, returned to the ship after the first explosion to attempt to retrieve his equipment, and was killed when the ship was sunk by the second larger explosion.

The New Zealand Police immediately initiated a murder inquiry into the sinking. With the assistance of the New Zealand public and an intense media focus the police quickly established the movements of all of the bombers. On July 12 two of the six bombers, posing as Swiss tourists and carrying Swiss passports, who had operated under orders were found and arrested. At trial they pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were eventually sentenced to a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. Most of the others were identified and three were interviewed by the New Zealand Police on Norfolk Island - an Australian territory - where they had escaped in the yacht Ouvea. They were not arrested due to lack of forensic evidence that was necessary to satisfy the Australian authorities. Ouvea subsequently sailed, ostensibly for Nouma, but was scuttled en route with the personnel transferring to a French naval vessel. Most of the DGSE members remained in French government service.

In September 1985 the French minister of defense Charles Hernu resigned and prime minister Laurent Fabius admitted, on television, that agents of the French secret service had sunk the boat on orders.

After the conviction and imprisonment of the two French agents, France threatened to block New Zealand exports to the European Economic Community (EEC) unless the two were released. In June 1986, in a political deal with the then Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange and presided over by the United Nations Secretary-General, Javier Prez de Cullar, France agreed to pay compensation of NZ$13 million (USD$6.5 million) to New Zealand and 'apologise', in return for which Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao atoll for three years. However, the two spies had both returned to France by May 1988, after less than two years on the atoll, Mafart having ostensibly travelled to France for medical treatment (without returning at the conclusion of the treatment) and Prieur having become pregnant after her husband had been allowed to join her.

<snip>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_War...

The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior, codenamed Operation Satanic<1>, was a special operation by the "action" branch of the French foreign intelligence services, the Direction Gnrale de la Scurit Extrieure (DGSE), carried out on July 10, 1985. It aimed to sink the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior, while she was docked in the port of Auckland, New Zealand, to prevent her from interfering in a nuclear test in Moruroa.

Fernando Pereira, a photographer, drowned on the sinking ship. Two of the French agents were subsequently arrested by the New Zealand Police on passport fraud and immigration charges. Following questioning, they were subsequently charged with arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful damage, and murder. As part of a plea bargain, they eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to ten years, of which they served just over two.

The ensuing scandal resulted in the resignation of the French Defence Minister Charles Hernu, and the subject became so touchy that it was not until twenty years afterward that the personal responsibility of French President Franois Mitterrand was officially admitted.

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Lost in the editing process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_War...
...

Agents had boarded and carefully examined the ship while she was open to public viewing. Explosions were calculated that would be sufficient to cripple the ship, but, they hoped, precise and small enough not to take life.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Low velocity rounds have been used with sniper rifles
for political asassinations since Vietnam (where they were developed,) because sound suppressors don't work after a certain velocity. (With high velocity rifle rounds, the bullet itself breaks the sound barrier, and nothing can suppress that crack.) In a dificult shot like that, the dum-dum was probably to insure that he would bleed to death even if he were hit in the arm or the leg.

As far as the legality of lead bullets-- probably a member of the regular military would refuse to use them. But in our world intelligence agents of most all nations routinely ignore the Geneva convention and international law. Japan certainly has a history of using asassins in political and business dealings and has a record of ignoring international law. The hit would not necesarily have to have been government sanctioned, but was probably done with tacit agreement from higher ups who are understandably getting fed up with Watson and his aggressive tactics (and his ability to get off in the regular courts.) The suppressor, and low velocity round were probably used so that sailors on the Japanese ship would not be able to identify where the shot came from if ordered to testify. One shot, only. A classic political asassination attempt.....

As for accusing Watson of faking it-- seems over the top to me, and totally unnecesary. Hard to see what he gains from it when he's already kicking the whalers' asses....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
41. Even a subsonic sniper round will punch through body armor with ease.
There's no way this "assassination attempt" passes the smell test. Sound like a PR stunt to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #41
82. Actually you are wrong about that.
Vests designated type3 and above will stop a high powered rifle round. You can buy them on ebay for less than 250 bucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
67. SAY WHAT!?
for political asassinations since Vietnam (where they were developed,)


Low velocity rounds have been around and in use since the 1940's!!!

The De Lisle carbine is a classic example.
The De Lisle was made in very limited numbers; 129 were produced during the period of 1942 to 1945 in three variations (Ford Dagenham Prototype, Sterling production and one Airborne prototype). Thompson submachine gun barrels were modified to provide the .45 calibre barrel, which was ported to provide a slow release of high pressure gas.

The De Lisle carbine was used by British commandos and special forces, and was accurate to 250 metres.

Because the cartridge was subsonic, the carbine was extremely quiet, possibly one of the quietest guns ever made.

The De Lisle was used by special military units during World War II and the Malayan Emergency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #67
83. I don't think you're following the conversation.
You're talking about pistol ammo. In World War two they had silenced pistols and sub-machine guns. Special Forces were still using these relics in Vietnam in the sixties. In the seventies they developed suppressors for "real" sniper rifles, 30.06 Springfield and .308 Winchester. They had to be used with specially loaded lower velocity rounds. You can't truly "silence" these weapons, but you can "suppress" the crack so that witnesses can't identify where it came from. Of course the technology has advanced since then and they have truly "mind blowing" weapons today.

However, a high powered rifle may not have been needed here. These boats were within rock throwing distance of each other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. I don't think your following logic
The concept and development of subsonic loads for pistols and rifles started LONG before the Vietnam war.

You are correct in your knowledge of the inability to "silence" supersonic rifle rounds.

Your straying far off the course of the point here, this shit was faked PERIOD.

The entire point here is that that is not a rifle round, it's mass is too great, it's diameter is too great, and it's solid lead.
It was a pistol round, and no other impacts were notice anywhere else on the vessel. One shot hitting the target is highly unlikely, 1 out of 5 shots I could believe. But there is nothing about multiple shots being fired.

Watson has a history of publicity stunts, and this one just doesn't pass the smell test.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. You don't know what kind of weapon or what kind of round
was used. You don't know how many shots were fired. You don't know whether Watson was shot deliberately or accidentally. If it was deliberate, you don't know if it was pre-meditated, officially sanctioned, or fired in anger. You don't have any basis to make a statement that "this shit was faked, PERIOD."

The fact is that the Japanese Coast Guard reported to their own embasy that multiple "warning shots" were fired. You don't even know that.

The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about, and your claims of expertise do not stand up to scrutiny. As far as I can tell, you're just a guy that doesn't like Watson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #90
93. Your just a guy who doesn't like scrutiny
I'm just a guy that hates fakes and bullshitters!

Your scrutiny is based on NO expertise, and I know that for a fact!

You don't know how many shots were fired.


I assume you know by some divine power only you possess. No one else has said anything about multiple shots, in fact the statement from Sea Shepherd clearly indicated it was a single shot, thus reasonably deducing my conclusion that this was not a "stray" bullet from a hail of gunfire. (your hypothesis)

You don't know whether Watson was shot deliberately or accidentally. If it was deliberate, you don't know if it was pre-meditated, officially sanctioned, or fired in anger.


Neither do you!!!! But you seem to think the Japanese government is stupid enough to attempt this KNOWING there is a film crew on board!!! Hello, can you even comprehend the term LOGICAL.

You don't have any basis to make a statement that "this shit was faked, PERIOD."


Yes I do, but instead of attacking the facts and opinions I've presented, you try to question my expertise and character. In the same process however, you demonstrated your lack of both.

The other side of that coin reads: You don't have any basis to make a statement that "this shit was real, PERIOD."

The fact is that the Japanese Coast Guard reported to their own embassy that multiple "warning shots" were fired. You don't even know that.


The only fact here is that you are wrong AGAIN!!!!! The Japanese Government has adamantly denied this.

The only evidence to support your assertion is purely hearsay from biased parties, but I guess being blessed with that divined power allows your to filter bias out as well.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080307/activists-whal...

Japan denied shots had been fired. It was impossible to verify either side's account of the clash, which occurred some 1,800 miles south-southwest of Melbourne, Australia, in the Antarctic Ocean, according to the coast guard.


The fact is that you don't know what you are talking about.


I think we can clearly see who's speaking with knowledge, and who's ranting with emotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
98. That's not a rifle round he's holding in the photo, though.
It is too short and wide. It looks like a conventional handgun-caliber jacketed hollowpoint (typical police duty load) that has expanded and possibly undergone a core-jacket separation. See the photos of expanded rifle rounds I posted upthread.

BTW, expanding rounds are not illegal for police or Coast Guard to use, and practically all police agencies use them for safety and liability reasons, as do most non-LEO civilians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. An ironic quote
This, is the lead quote from a commentary written last month by Paul Watson himself:
http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080205_...

It does not matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.
Dr. Patrick Moore, President of Greenpeace Canada 1981



In the commentary, Watson complains about alleged deceptive practices of Greenpeace...
...

Enough is enough. The Greenpeace fraud about saving the whales must be exposed. For years, I have been tolerating their pretense of action and watching them turn their ocean posing photo ops into tremendous profits from whaling. And now they say they cant return to the Southern Oceans with their ship the Esperanza because they dont have the budget for it and because they are going to direct their energies into lobbying for change inside Japan.

...

As the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin prepares to return to the Southern Ocean alone to resume the pursuit of the Japanese whaling fleet, Greenpeace will be making trips to the bank to deposit millions of dollars raised under the false pretense of saving whales. It is obscene, fraudulent and scandalous. Yet as long as whaling continues Greenpeace will continue to milk the issue as a cash cow.

All the more reason for Sea Shepherd to shut down the Antarctic whaling operation. We need to put the whalers out of business and we need to put the people profiting from whaling out of business also.


Occam's razor time: Which is more plausible?
  • An exceptional sniper was hired to use an unconventional bullet against a single man to protect the Japanese whaling industry?A man who has, fortuitously, guarded himself against this unprecedented eventuality. (Would that even work? I mean, would people say, "Oh! I didn't realize what we were doing was dangerous!)
  • An advocate who is desperate for funds to continue his mission (but may not be up on munitions technology) who feels betrayed by the organization he helped to found, an organization he feels is intentionally deceiving people, resorts to deception himself.

A faked assassination attempt would (presumably) have multiple benefits.
  • It would cast the Japanese in a bad light, "They're not just killing whales, now they're killing people!"
  • It would elevate the public image of Sea Shepherd's work.
  • It would contrast the heroic Sea Shepherd with the (deceptive) Greenpeace, hopefully diverting funds from Greenpeace to Sea Shepherd.


I keep coming back to his choice of quotes to open his commentary. Clearly deception was foremost in his mind at the time. In my experience, people see the world as a mirror. (If they are honest, people assume everyone else is honest. If they cheat others, people see everyone else as cheaters, like themselves.) People seem to find most irksome in others, the bad traits they have in common.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. A real assassination attempt would also have all the benefits you mentioned.
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 11:12 AM by GliderGuider
At this point I don't find anything about this situation terribly plausible. Post-hoc psychological deconstruction of Watson's writings strikes me as a pretty slim reed, but I also can't imagine the Japanese would want to shoot themselves in the foot at the same time as shooting Watson in the chest.

On the other hand, the French did something at least as outrageous in New Zealand, so maybe official judgment gets clouded when national pride is at stake. On the third hand, if Watson faked it, he'd know people are quite ready to believe the worst of anti-environmental governments because they remember the Rainbow Warrior.

Until we get a forensic report, it's nothing but a tail-chase for either side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. With one key difference
A successful assassination attempt would have left a dead man on the deck. A faked assassination attempt has (relatively) little risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Presumably from a real assassin's POV that would have been the primary benefit of the exercise.
Your list of benefits would be seen as "operational costs".

The one thing that I wonder about is the cost/benefit analysis, on both sides. It doesn't make sense to me. The event is just too over-the-top, no matter whether it was real or faked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. My thoughts exactly
However, if you haven't yet, read his little "editorial." He doesn't seem to be on an even keel.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080205_...

I have to conclude from the incident that someone's lost perspective here; and I'm afraid (based on his writing) he's my chief suspect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
30. We are in "Ends justify the means" territory
What Watson is doing is not entirely "sane". He is a true believer. The Japanese have absolutely nothing to gain by shooting him. Such an act would turn him into a Martyr for the cause, and cast the Japanese as homicidal monsters. It would further inflame world opinion and raise the stakes immeasurably. If the vest is a plant, as has been suggested, Watson runs the risk of exposure, but his most emotional followers will never accept that possibility. One more note. Accurate sniping requires a stable platform. At sea, both the shooter and his target are moving up, down and around in a highly irregular fashion. The chance of a successful shot under those conditions is nil. The jury is still out, but I'm sceptical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. A third possibility has occurred to me
It's possible (although not terribly probable) that a "warning shot" somehow managed to hit him, almost entirely by accident. Even this seems improbable, but more likely than the "miracle bullet" theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. If Watson is not "entirely sane," then who is?
The Japanese, who are killing whales for no logical reason, or the rest of us for watching our world crumble around us and doing diddly squat about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Occam's razor time: Which is more plausible?
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 11:16 AM by bananas
Occam's razor time: Which is more plausible?
- An exceptional team was hired to use two bombs against a single ship to protect the French nuclear weapons industry?
- An eco-terrorist organization that is desperate for funds to continue its mission resorts to deception itself?

A faked bombing attempt would (presumably) have multiple benefits.
- It would cast the French in a bad light, "They're not just bombing islands, now they're bombing people!"
- It would elevate the public image of Greenpeace's work.
- It would contrast the heroic Greenpeace with the Sierra Club, hopefully diverting funds from Sierra Club to Greenpeace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I don't believe the French intended to kill anybody
There was no one on the ship when the first bomb went off.

I expect the French saw it as analogous to the sort of actions taken by Greenpeace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Doesn't matter
As GG says, we should wait for forensics.
Trying to use Occam's razor on this is ridiculous.
Some people would use Occam's razor to conclude it was faked,
others would use Occam's razor to conclude it was real.
Maybe your attempt at armchair psychology only reflects your own frame of mind,
perhaps you think he faked it because that's something you would do yourself.
Do you really want to make that argument?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Actually, I'd never heard of him before...
...or read any of the threads about the incident. I read GG's post, and it just didn't read as plausible. I did some quick searching, and found his little screed, and said to myself, "This guy's raving!"

If you haven't read it, read it. He goes on at length about just how evil Greenpeace is: http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_080205_...



So, let's assume for a moment that the whalers had it in for him. Why not shoot a harpoon, and say "Ooops! Damn! Sorry about that! We were shooting at a whale and you guys got in the way!" The sniper's just so melodramatic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. You never heard of Paul Watson before?
It would be very out of character for him to fake this.
There's no reason for him to.


The Dalai Lama is a supporter: http://www.seashepherd.org/supporters/featured_0703_Dal...

Here's what he does: http://www.seashepherd.org/whales /

He's been arrested, tried, and exhonerated: http://www.seashepherd.org/about-mandate.html

"This UN Charter was upheld in 1995 when Captain Paul Watson cited the Charter as his authority to order Spanish and Cuban drag trawlers off the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Captain Watson had been arrested in this area, outside of the Canadian 200 mile limit, by Canadian authorities and was charged with felony mischief.

"During the court proceedings, the jury was advised by the Judge that Canada was a signatory to the World Charter for Nature, and as such, they must take the Charter into full account.

"Captain Watson was acquitted “by reason of colour of right,” and at the same time established a Canadian precedent for using the Charter to defend actions of intervention against illegal fishing activities.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. I freely admit my ignorance
However, if Greenpeace is as evil as he says, they have the charity watchdog groups fooled along with the media:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.su...
http://charitywatch.org/toprated.html#enviro
http://charityreports.bbb.org/public/Report.aspx?Charit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #22
40. Watson was a founding member of Greenpeace
and was booted off the board after a rift with other boardmembers...that explains the animosity.

It would be devastating to his cause if he was stupid enough to fake an attempt on his life and get caught. Though he is irrational at times and passionate beyond reason, I can't believe he is that stupid...yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. There are so many things wrong with this, ballistically, I barely know where to begin
First, this:

""Next, I want to point out that this was not a a knee-jerk reaction to shoot you. I was the best shot in HQ Company at Camp Pendleton for two years (1966-67), and couldn't have done this in my prime. Apparently, you were shot from high to low involving two moving ships on the high seas. Also, you were probably moving at random, and the shot was within three inches of your heart."

Moving ships, high seas, randomly moving target, one shot. That's a hell of a stretch even for a highly-trained sniper.

Then:

"Every black powder (low velocity soft lead bullet) hunter knows the low velocity allows the bullet to expand within the animal causing extreme damage. High velocity bullets go through too fast for maximum destruction."

This is a flat-out myth. My uncle deer-hunts with a .44 Mag handgun firing lead flatnose rounds, and they do NOT do extreme damage. They penetrate very deeply and only expand a small amount, because they are solid and are traveling at a low velocity. He relies on the penetration through the other side of the animal to leave a blood trail so he can track the deer through the woods, not on extreme damage dropping it in it's tracks (unless he shatters a shoulder blade).

My AR-15, on the other hand, fires a small bullet at 3200 feet per second. The bullet will tumble, snap and tear itself into numerous deadly fragments within a human body. The Beltway sniper, who killed 8 people with one-shot kills, was using an AR-15 with similar ammunition. High-velocity rounds are absolutely deadly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The more I think about it, the more I agree with you.
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 02:32 PM by GliderGuider
A single low-velocity bullet is fired between two another pitching ships at a moving target 100 meters away, through Antarctic winds, and it scores a hit near his heart right on his badge? I wouldn't accept that scenario in a Clint Eastwood western (or even a Clint Westwood eastern, for that matter).

That leaves the question, WTF really happened out there? I know kristopher thinks Watson set it all up, but that would be pretty out of character for someone who is as hard-line a moralist as I think Watson is. So if it wasn't a Japanese hit, and Watson didn't frag himself, what the hell happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Speaking of that, has Watson corroborated any of this story?
Is this possibly a rumor that got out of hand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It's on the Sea Shepherd website
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 02:54 PM by bananas
and the ship doctor said there's a bruise where the bullet hit

edit to add link: http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_3.html

<snip>

Dr. David Page, the ship’s medical officer, has examined and verified that there were three injuries sustained, all severe bruises. Ralph Lowe from Melbourne was bruised on the back by an exploding flash grenade, and Animal Planet cameraman Ashley Dunn from Launceston, Tasmania injured his hip while trying to avoid a flash grenade. Captain Watson has a large bruise and a cut on the upper left side of his chest.

Dr. Page pried a bullet from Captain Watson’s Kevlar vest and examined the bruise where the bullet impacted. Watson’s Sea Shepherd anti-poaching badge took up some of the force of the impact, but it also cut the skin beneath after it was mangled by the bullet.

Japan claims there were only two Coast Guard officers on the Nisshin Maru, but Sea Shepherd photos and videos clearly show at least four uniformed Coast Guardsmen.

<snip>


edit to add a link:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/983472137/665235

Saturday March 8, 2008, 2:56 pm

Dr. David Page, the ship’s medical officer, has examined and verified that there were three injuries sustained, all severe bruises. Ralph Lowe from Melbourne was bruised on the back by an exploding flash grenade, and Animal Planet cameraman Ashley Dunn from Launceston, Tasmania injured his hip while trying to avoid a flash grenade. Captain Watson has a large bruise and a cut on the upper left side of his chest.

Sea Shepherd 1st officer Peter Brown:

"At the time the shot was fired, the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru was moving parallel to the Steve Irwin in stormy seas. The high level of movement indicates that the shot must have been fired by an expert.

"We have received verbal confirmation that the Australian Embassy has been advised by the Japanese that a crew member on board the Nisshin Maru fired “warning” shots. In addition to the lead bullet lodged in Captain Watson’s Kevlar vest, up to seven flash grenades were also hurled by armed Japanese Coast Guard Officers, injuring two other Steve Irwin crew members."

"Captain Watson is now in a comfortable condition, and no whales are being slaughtered in the name of bogus research by these illegal poachers. No warning was given that a bullet would be fired."


edit to add: longer article at http://www.care2.com/c2c/share/detail/666037

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Watson's possible line of reasoning
I think Watson is addicted to the limelight. He doesn't see it that way however.

I believe, that to him, the logic is that he MUST save the whales - that's the goal. A secondary goal is to bring attention to the cause. That fights the fight on the political and PR fronts.

Since the legal framework he is operating under favors the Japanese, he is faced with a limited range of choices for action. Let's see if this sort of stepping over the line is characteristic of Watson.

.....He can harass them and block them, while respecting the legal limits.

Results - he slows but doesn't stop the killings. Gets lots of media attention and generates huge enthusiasm among his core supporters.

Goal 1 failed, goal 2 successful.



.....He can harass, block them, and inflict damage of the sort that he can argue is non-intentional and a result of "close blocking operations". This is clearly illegal, in the same way someone running you off the road is committing an illegal ac. Whether there is an enforcement mechanism of not isn't relevant. His actions show unarguably that he is willing to cross a clear line.

Results - he slows but doesn't stop the killings. Gets lots of media attention and generates huge enthusiasm among his core supporters.

Goal 1 failed, goal 2 successful.



.....He can board their ships. An act of piracy. Whether there is an enforcement mechanism of not isn't relevant. His actions show unarguably that he is willing to cross a clear line

Results - he slows but doesn't stop the killings. Gets lots of media attention and generates huge enthusiasm among his core supporters.

Goal 1 failed, goal 2 successful


.....He can make himself a martyr without actually doing the dying by framing the Japanese (pretty clumsily in my view).

Results: Results - he slows but doesn't stop the killings. Gets lots of media attention and generates huge enthusiasm among his core supporters.

Goal 1 ?, goal 2 ?


I don't think it is out of character for him at all.


GG, you said something to the effect of I sound irrational regarding Watson. Maybe there is an element of personality in there. I grew up with a S Baptist lay minister grandfather (sincere religious zealot) and a couple of uncles that had successful "traveling ministries". They were family and we all knew they were con artists. At an early age I learned to spot and detest this type of cynical manipulation of the blind trust of good people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #28
56. Hi, this is Morty, from Columbia Entertainment.
Mr. Damen really loved your screenplay, but unfortunately our legal department had to pass on it because of libel issues. Please feel free to submit your "scenarios" to us in the future, but try to remember that we are in the business of entertainment-- not slandering respected public figures.
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #15
42. Another thing: the author has no idea what a dum-dum bullet actually is
Originally, British troops serving in Southeast Asia took to the practice of filing down the tips of JACKETED bullets to create dum-dum bullets. They were never made of solid lead, but instead were modified from existing rounds. The reason they were so destructive was that by filing off the tip, you have a hard copper jacket surrounding a softer and now exposed lead core. On impact, the jacket holds the bullet together long enough to penetrate to the vitals, but finally the increased pressure on the exposed lead at the tip compacts the core and causes the bullet to break apart, throwing sharp pieces of jacket material through the body like little razor blades.

The author may have shot at Camp Pendleton for 2 years, but he apparently doesn't know all that much about terminal ballistics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
23. Shots in southern seas
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/nelsonmail/4433466a23218.h...

Shots in southern seas

Sea Shepherd boss Paul Watson is fighting the good fight in the Southern Ocean as he attempts to halt Japan's dishonest and provocative whaling programme, the Nelson Mail said in an editorial on Monday.

Unfortunately, however, he is not only a dangerous extremist but also proven to be, at best, economical with the truth. If a Greenpeace spokesperson claimed to have been shot at by a whaler and to have dug a bullet out of a protective vest, he or she would likely be believed by most of the world's population. Mr Watson, however, long ago parted company with Greenpeace - he was one of its founders - because its brand of environmental activism is much too tame for him.

He sees himself as a modern-day pirate outside the namby-pamby rules of international law. He shamelessly courts publicity, often claiming to have done things that he hasn't. Japan is determined to continue whaling, oblivious to the tide of world opinion, but its whalers aren't likely to shoot anyone unless they're acting in self-defence, and the confrontation hasn't quite reached that level. Mr Watson might wish to be a martyr but at the moment he's more like the little boy crying wolf, and his antics risk serious damage to the strong anti-whaling case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Animal Planet Statement Regarding Sea Shepherd Society Activities in the Antarctic
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...

Animal Planet Statement Regarding Sea Shepherd Society Activities in the Antarctic


SILVER SPRING, Md., March 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Over the last several
months, Animal Planet's producers have been embedded with the Sea Shepherd
Society for a new television mini-series entitled WHALE WARS, where the
U.S.-based cable television network's producers have followed the
organization's annual sojourn to stop Japanese whaling operations in the
Antarctic Ocean. The organization uses unconventional and radical methods
to eradicate controversial whaling operations and was founded by former
Greenpeace member Paul Watson.

Several high-profile and internationally publicized incidents have
unfolded since December 2007, including two Sea Shepherd crew members being
temporarily held against their will by a Japanese vessel, and yesterday,
when Paul Watson was hit with a gunshot, allegedly fired by another
Japanese ship. Watson was unharmed in the situation as he was wearing a
protective vest.

The events that have taken place were all captured by Animal Planet's
producers and will be presented through the documentary series WHALE WARS,
slated for U.S. broadcast this fall. Animal Planet is thankful that all
parties to these conflicts over the last three months to-date are safe and
unharmed. The network will showcase these events with a strong journalistic
lens that spotlights this global conservation issue that has several
nations at odds over both the practice of whaling in oceanic territories.



SOURCE Animal Planet

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Aha. If I may don my tinfoil hat for a moment...
This incident was for the benefit of, and perhaps arranged by, the Animal Planet producers.

"You want me to produce your war?"

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. That's an editorial
by someone named "Nelson" no-last-name.
And it's incorrect, Watson has been following international law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. An interesting New Yorker article from last November
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_...

Neptunes Navy

Paul Watsons wild crusade to save the oceans.

by Raffi Khatchadourian
November 5, 2007

...

Watson is fifty-six years old, pudgy and muscular. His hair, which is white, often hangs over his eyes in unkempt bangs. During trips to Antarctica, he usually grows a beard or a goatee. On January 19th, the day he moored his ships together in the Ross Sea, he wore a black, military-style sweater adorned with Sea Shepherd patches, and a rainbow-colored belt that held a sheathed knife. Watson was captaining the Farley, a rusty North Sea trawler built in Norway in 1958. The ship, black with yellow trim, featured a skull and crossbones painted across its superstructure and, on the forward deck, a customized device called the can opener: a sharpened steel I-beam that is propelled outward from the ships starboard side and is used to scrape the hulls of adversaries. Watsons plan was to transfer as much furniture, equipment, and crew as he could from the Farley to the Hunter, in part because the Farley was old and barely seaworthy, in part because it was operating illegally and could be confiscated upon entry into port, and in part to ready it for a procedure that he called Operation Assholeso named because it involved ramming one vessel into anothers stern.

When Watson is separated from land, he tends to behave like Captain Nemo, which is to say that he does what he thinks is right, even if it involves a violation of custom or the destruction of property. There are a number of rules belonging to civilization that outrage his sense of morality, among them the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which asserts that sovereign states alone are the oceans enforcers. If such rules interfere with his agenda, then, as far as he is concerned, rules be damned. This is particularly true when whales are at issue. Watson believes that whales are more intelligent than people, and that their slaughter is tantamount to murder. (He once compared their extermination to the Holocaust.) The Japanese take a different view. They have been hunting whales with a modern industrial fleet since the nineteen-thirties, and the more resolutely the rest of the world condemns their hunt the more adamantly their government seems to support it. Watson maintains that if his opponents are forced to defend their actions in public they will demonstrate the untenable nature of their position. A key part of his strategy is to force the issue.

...

Watson has a tendency to see things in their essence rather than in their particulars. A diplomat might say that the Japanese whaling fleet is technically complying with the rules of the I.W.C., and that to stop it one must first upset the status quo that permits the fleet to hunt whales. Watson, who cannot be bothered with the legal nuances of international regulations, insists that the Japanese fleet is breaking the law, and that, because the I.W.C. refuses to act, he and his crew must. He calls his fleet Neptunes Navy, and he regards it as a law-enforcement agency. Moments before ramming a vessel, Watson will radio its captain and say something that sounds very official, such as Please remove yourselves from these waters. You are in violation of international conservation regulations. At times, he loses his cool. Were no protest ship, he once told an intransigent captain. Now, get out of here. His sense of urgency, his impressive ego, his argumentativeness, his love of theatrics, his tendency to bend the truth, his willingness to risk lives or injury for his beliefs (or for publicity), and his courage (or recklessness) have earned him both loathing and veneration from those who are familiar with his activism.

...

Watsons detractors are no less adamant. Officials in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Costa Rica have denounced him; some have even called him a terrorist. In the mid-nineties, Norway convicted him of attempting to scuttle a whaler named Nybrna, and he spent eighty days in prison. He is persona non grata in Iceland, Kristjn Loftsson, the managing director of Hvalur, Icelands largest whaling company, told me. Watson has made enemies of other conservationists, too. For decades, Greenpeace has wanted nothing to do with hima rebuke that is particularly stinging because he was a founder of the organization. Last year, Watson resigned from the Sierra Clubs national board, after feuding with other members about the groups policies. He has been barred from I.W.C. meetings since 1986, when Sea Shepherd scuttled two of Hvalurs ships in Reykjaviks harboran act of sabotage that many conservationists believe helped turn Icelandic public opinion against the cause of saving whales. Sidney Holt, one of the principal architects of the whaling moratorium, told me, I think his involvement in all this is an absolute disaster. Almost everything he has been doing has had blowback for those who want to see an end to whaling. In too many cases, playing piracy on the ocean, and creating danger for other ships, is simply not liked.

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
31. Let's get real for a moment.
Watson took a bullet to the chest during a confrontation with the Japanese Whalers. That is a fact that, and there are witnesses and video documentation of that fact. All this crap about Watson "faking it" is B.S. Google it before you let your imaginations run wild with movie of the week melodrama. The Japanese shot Watson.

It's a fact that they have armed Japanese "Coast Guard" men with them. It's a fact that they reported to their own embassy that they fired warning shots at the Steve Irwin, and then retracted their story after they heard that Watson had been hit.

One plausable scenario that satisfies all questions that have been raised is that he could have been accidentally hit by a stray warning shot. Or a lucky shot fired in anger. Or a sniper... Or, or, etc. But if you google this and read all the articles about it-- I've read 8 or 10 so far-- it's clear that he took a bullet to the chest. You can't fake that. The bullet was removed while being filmed by an outside film crew and his injury documented by a doctor. That ain't fake.

It's attempted murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Now there's a coincidence...
Edited on Mon Mar-10-08 08:55 PM by OKIsItJustMe
I too offered the possibility that he was hit by a warning shot.

However, as for the video.
I've seen video of flash grenades.
I've seen video of him (allegedly) discovering that he'd been shot.
I've seen video of a bullet being removed from his vest.
I have not seen video of him being shot.

See here for video (if anyone had video of him actually being shot, it would be here I think.)
http://www.seashepherd.org/migaloo/video.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Yeah, I just saw your post.
Great minds, etc....

You're right that no one saw him get hit, but it's hard to believe that he could disapear somewhere and have an accomplice shoot him with an outside film crew on board. A doctor verified that he was injured by it, so the vest wasn't just shot-- he was.

We know there were guns on the Nishin Maru-- no one has reported guns on board the Steve Irwin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I don't know as the doctor proves much of anything
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_1.html
...

Captain Paul Watson was struck by a bullet in the chest. Fortunately, the bullet was stopped by his Kevlar vest. The bullet struck just above the heart and mangled Captain Watsons anti-poaching badge, which was worn on his sweater underneath the Kevlar vest.


Dr. David Page was videotaped prying the bullet from Captain Watsons Kevlar vest. You have been hit by a bullet, he said.

The Kevlar vest and anti-poaching badge effectively saved Captain Watsons life.

...

Not exactly what I call a forensic examination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The evidence that he was shot during a confrontation
with Japanese whalers, who were known to be armed, and who informed their embassy that they had fired shots seems to be incontrovertible.

The conclusions that one draws from those facts seem to be somewhat of a Rohrchach test....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. The Japanese insist that the round be turned over to Australian police for forensic exam
Why would they do that?

It is much more likely that Watson staged a show for his disciples. Cults feed on staged miracles.

He claims he was shot directly at the heart and his whale rescue badge stopped the bullet.

This gets more fantastical with every telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-10-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #35
62. There are guns on the Steve Irwin
We do have rifles but they are never taken out of where they are kept. We are not going to shoot anyone. Even when we threw things at the ship we made sure what we threw was non-toxic and organic. It smelt really bad but it was not dangerous.


http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=29&Conten...

Every aspect of this situation clearly indicates it was a fake.

I have been hand-loading ammo for 23 years. While in the army I worked at Aberdeen proving grounds testing various weapons and body armor.

I was a second on the all army shooting team, and have forgotten more about ballistics than the "Dumb-dumb" who wrote the crap about the "dumb-dumb".

It is very well known that Watson wears body armor, had they wanted him dead, a high velocity full metal jacket bullet would have penetrated the vest, badge and the steel bulkhead behind him! The shock channel would have jellied both lungs and heart, and even if the ship was equipped with a full surgical suite, he would have NEVER survived!

To add to this, slowing down the velocity of a high caliber rifle to pistol velocities generally results in a HUGE loss of accuracy due to the inability of the powder to burn uniformly with so much empty space in the rifle case. (simple terms)

I have viewed every video, and read all the statements that can be found on the web, and it all adds up to one conclusion.

The bullet was clearly fired at a near perfect straight trajectory into the vest. This is clearly indicated in the video by the near perfect mushroomed shape of the bullet (pause the vid, and you can see it well).
This means someone laid out the vest and carefully "punched" a bullet into it. It looked so familiar to me, because I've done it over a hundred times.

The bullet was also massive, not a small military caliber, and not a ball ammo pistol round. So the random handgun theory is blown too. If one of the JCG shot his pistol it would have been loaded with standard ball ammo which has a full metal copper. The video clearly shows NO copper. Jacket separation only occurs at VERY close distance - less the 10 feet.

In Watson's own words he felt "a thud in his upper chest".

The laws of physics are not negated because your cause is just my friend.
The size and shape of the bullet combined with the penetration of the vest and damage to the badge CLEARLY indicated a HUGE transference of energy.
Had he been wearing that vest when the bullet impacted it, it would have sent him two feet back and damn near knocked him out of his shoes.
He would have survived easily, but they would have had to pick his fat ass up of the deck!

Prove it to yourself, take a 1/2 ounce pure lead fishing weight and a regular sized hammer, and see how much force it takes to changes it's shape. After you try it, you'll agree with me.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #62
63. Well, that sounds pretty convincing
It will be interesting to watch this play out once they get back to port and it comes time to turn the bullet/vest/badge over to a lab for analysis.

If he faked it, it will set the anti-whaling movement back a decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #62
84. Your self proclaimed "expertise"
reads more like ant-Sea Shepherd talking points than factual information.

I have posted links to two videos on youtube of bullet proof vest ballistic tests. The first one shows a 9mm round being removed from a vest and it looks exactly like the one that Watson displays in the picture. The second one shows a man being shot POINT BLANK with a .357 magnum. He is not "blown back" two feet or "knocked on his ass." He does not stumble, wince, or so much as say, "Ouch!" There's about 100 of these ballistic tests on youtube-- you should check them out. Contrary to your statements, modern vests type3 and above can stop a high powered rifle bullet. Your knowledge of sniper weapons and ammo seems fragmented at best, or perhaps non-existent.

From the piece you referenced:

Sea Shepherd not surprised by shooting

8th March 2008, 16:45 WST





"Leader of anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd Paul Watson says he was not surprised to have been shot at by Japanese whalers yesterday.

"Captain Watson described the whalers as violent men and cowards who had deliberately aimed flash grenades at members of his crew and shot him in the chest.

"He said violence directed towards him and his crew was nothing compared to the pain and suffering of the very gentle creatures the whalers sought to slaughter.

"Captain Watson said it was the Australian Government and not conservation groups that should be preventing Japanese whalers from operating in Australian territorial waters."

Your "expert testimony" does not throw any doubt on Captain Watson's statements in my mind. Quite frankly, I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #84
86. Sounds to me like
All your expertise comes from you tube!!!

You stated there were no guns on the Steve Irwin, I proved that wrong.

As for the you tube vids, they are horse shit!

Point blank with a standard 158gr .357 magnum bullet generates roughly 574 ft/lbs of kinetic energy. That amount of energy is going to go somewhere when stopped, and it's going to hurt like hell!

I guess the LAWS of physics don't apply to you tube!

Contrary to my statement? Do you think you can cut through a type III plate with a knife?
No you can't cut through a type III plate with a knife. Given that,it's clear to see he was not wearing a type III vest!

Hello, have a Starbucks and get your eyes fully open.

It is very apparent whose knowledge of weapons and ammo is non-existent, YOURS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. More smoke.
I investigated your claims and I proved them to be false.

Not a single thing that you stated so authoritatively stands up to scrutiny. You are not an expert on weapons, ammo or defensive body armor.

I checked out all your false statements and none of them hold water.

You stated that he couldn't have been shot with a rifle because it woul punch right through his vest. Wrong.

You stated the boats were out of pistol range. Wrong.

You stated that a pistol shot would have knocked him down. Wrong.

You stated that no one reported multiple shots fired. Wrong.

You are wrong on all counts, and you can't explain the bruising to Watson's shoulder.

Your claims of expertise appear to be "faked, PERIOD."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
43. Photos and observations...
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 04:28 PM by benEzra
I couldn't find any decent photos of the bullet on the Sea Shepherd site, but from the very grainy bullet on the video, it looks too short and fat to be a rifle bullet. An expanded rifle bullet will generally look something like this:







unless it fragments. All of the above are civilian hunting bullets, which are designed to expand on impact.

A rifle bullet downloaded to slower velocities would be less expanded and might look like this:



It would not be squashed flat. Note that rifle bullets are quite long for their width.

Here are two .45 caliber handgun bullets:



which look much more like the round in the photos. The bullet on the right underwent a core-jacket separation.

Compare to the round he is holding:

http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5jjSj_IpjeFzLh93PKqUNS...

BTW, that is not an "illegal dumb dumb (sic) round", it is a law-enforcement-style jacketed hollowpoint like a police handgun would use; both pistol and revolver bullets can look like that. I believe that round may have undergone a jacket separation. Coast Guard handguns of most nations would likely be loaded with that type of bullet.

The bullet in the grainy video is larger and didn't hold its shape as well, so I suspect it may have been a handgun round. The fact that the ships were closer than I expected mitigates against my earlier rifle-bullet scenario.

To me, it looks very much like some idiot aboard the Japanese vessel decided to unload a handgun in the direction of the ship, perhaps in some very Hollywood-esque conception of a "warning shot", and hit the captain (the odds of which would be pretty low, but not so low as to rule out an unintentional hit). There are some carbines (small rifles) chambered for handgun rounds, but are not the thing one would use for a shot against a moving target; handgun rounds are abysmally slow compared to rifle rounds (~Mach 1 instead of ~Mach 2 to 3), carry relatively little energy (0.5 kJ or less instead of 3 to 4 kJ for a typical deer rifle/sniper rifle), which would make this an extremely unlikely choice of rounds for an intentional shooting from one ship to another at 150-200 feet.

This whole episode is very strange, but my best guess would be an idiot aboard the whaling vessel shooting at the Steve Irwin with a police-style handgun, perhaps trying to hit someone (and getting rather lucky), or perhaps just trying to hit the ship.

BTW, from a braced position, hitting a human-sized target at 150 feet with a pistol is not particularly hard for a well practiced shooter (especially with a full sized police handgun). I have hit smaller targets than that at 110 yards with my 9mm Ladysmith, shooting from sandbags. That doesn't mean it was intentional, but it was at minimum aggravated assault and/or reckless endangerment, and quite possibly attempted murder, depending on the motivation of the shooter. I don't buy the "marine sniper shooting patched lead bullets" theory, though.

(Terminology trivia--jacketed hollowpoint bullets are neither illegal, nor "dumb dumb". That particular silliness is a conflation of the name of the old British arsenal at Dum Dum, India (Bengali দমদম Dmdm, Hindi दमदम Damdam, per Wikipedia), which was where the British first experimented with soft-nose spitzer designs in an attempt to give them the same stopping power as the older unjacketed patched-lead bullets. A "Dum Dum" bullet would be an experimental British .303 rifle round made at Dum Dum in the late 1800's/early 1900's, and using the term to refer to jacketed softpoints/hollowpoints in general (particularly when spelled "dumb dumb") tends to make one the object of great derision in shooting circles. Pet peeve.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Thank you, good info.
Based on Japanese acknolwedgement that warning shots were fired, directly in response to allegations, we can assume that shots of some sort were fired in his direction. And the fact he is turning the bullet over for forensics would suggest he has nothing to hide.

At this stage a little premature to make guesses, but it looks legit to me.

Could even be a ricochet which would have removed a lot of energy from the bullet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. Improbable components of your scenario
I agree with the factual statements you've made, but perhaps I differ in the interpretation.

You wrote "BTW, from a braced position, hitting a human-sized target at 150 feet with a pistol is not particularly hard for a well practiced shooter (especially with a full sized police handgun)."

This obviously rules out an intentional targeting of Watson since the relative movement between the two ships is not something you could possibly overcome with a braced position. When the bracing of the wrist or barrel takes place, it is premised on the stability of the entire apparatus doing the bracing, including the "ground". It also required predictability in the location of the target. Moving ships on rough seas is a large hurdle to overcome with any scenario except the 1 in a billion lucky shot rationalization.

The second obstacle is that gun ownership is rigidly controlled. IF the round came from the Japanese ship, it is unlikely it was the work of some kook that was acting on his own. That doesn't mean I think it came from the Japanese ship, I don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Then I guess it's impossible for them to ever hit a whale
with a harpoon then...

That's how much sense your repeated argument makes. In the entire history of naval warfare no one on a moving ship has ever been able to hit an enemy aboard another moving ship (according to you.)

And these boats were close enough to lob hand grenades and stink bombs at each other. But, whatever....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Straw man. You're discarding the target size.
I suppose you think they don't shoot the whales directly in the brain (and reduce opposition based on inhumane killing) because they like watching the whales suffer, right? Or is perhaps because the a target 12x12 inches is too hard to hit under existing operating conditions.

As to your "entire history of naval warfare" claim, I'd recommend you review the type weapons used. You'll find that narrowly accurate weapons - say one that could target the opening of an opposing ships big guns - aren't really part of the arsenal.

For a good thought exercise, look at the difficulties involved in making a carrier landing.

And as to the "hand grenades" (or as an unbiased person would say, the flash bangs - hand grenades refer to fragmentation grenades in common parlance), did you notice in the video that the first one missed Watson's ship?

You are really stretching for rationalizations to defend Watson. He has crossed so many lines of ethical behavior in his pursuit of his goal by any means possible, I just don't see why you would think he wouldn't consider deceiving the public to be an act required for "the greater good".





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. The death of Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Lord_Nelson

"After crippling the French flagship Bucentaure, Victory moved on to the Redoutable. The two ships became entangled, at which point snipers in the fighting tops of Redoutable were able to pour fire down onto the deck of Victory. Nelson was hit from a range of about fifty feet:<15> a bullet entered his left shoulder, pierced his lung, and came to rest at the base of his spine. Nelson retained consciousness for four hours, but died soon after the battle ended with a British victory. (See Last words.) The bullet that killed Nelson was removed from his body and is now on public display in Windsor Castle."

Two ships within hand grenade range. Snipers with muskets. The Admiral shot in the left shoulder. (Too bad he wasn't wearing a flak vest-- that would have stopped the lead bullet...)

I could post a couple dozen stories like this one, but you'll keep responding with more foolish nonsense. Because you're motivated by hatred and you left your intellect behind a long time ago...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Find one example of the type of emotionalism that is characteristic of hate in my posts.
Edited on Tue Mar-11-08 10:06 PM by kristopher
Your posts on the other hand, are bulging emotions.

For example, an objective person would recognize your reference to Nelson as an invalid comparison on the face of it.

In one circumstance "two ships became entangled (locked together and moving more in unison), at which point snipers (plural) in the fighting tops of Redoutable were able to pour fire down onto the deck (many, many rounds fired) of Victory"; and in the other we have a single shot to within 3" of the heart between two ships underway at high good speed on rough seas.

There is one aspect to this that I do hate, though; I'm totally sour on people who blindly cheer on their chosen hero without even an basic understanding of the real facts involved. That's the root of the Bush problem. Without people of that mindset, Bush is just a rich worthless dumbass, with them he is a threat to human existence.

So to the extent that I see a lot of that in the whaling debate, I suppose I do have a bone to pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. More of the same B.S. as I predicted....
You've been all over Watson and Sea Shepherd for weeks. Calling them pirates and criminals, etc. You seized on this story as something that would bolster your slanderous attacks on a man that many of us regard as a hero. You say a shot to the shoulder from ship to ship is impossible. You are wrong, and I have proven you wrong. I provided you with a famous example of what can happen in these types of confrontations -- with MUSKETS-- and you are not man enough to admit that you have been proven wrong. To me it calls into question your basic character and invalidates all your posts in this group.

There is nothing "impossible" about hitting a man with a firearm from ship to ship in close quarters. Thousands of men have been killed throughout history in these kinds of confrontations. You hate Watson and won't listen to facts or reason. You are an angry and unreasonable person, and not really worth arguing with, but I'm going to fact check you when you attack environmentalists. If you don't like it, then fact check yourself.

You don't know what you are talking about, and it makes you look foolish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. Good luck with that extreme case of cognitive dissonance.
Watson uses tactics that are criminal and piratical. That is a fact. Why do you deny it?
Actually that was a rhetorical question because I already know why you deny it - you aren't able to deal with reality when it conflicts with cherished beliefs. Taking that into account, I'd recommend that you might be a happier person if you retired to a hermitage.

As for your claims about what Nelson proves, I'll let others decide the validity of our arguments, we've both stated them clearly enough.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. More slander.
Name a crime he's been convicted of.

Tell me why sharpshooters with muskets can shoot people from ship to ship and sharpshooters with modern weapons can't.

You're a fool and and a bullshitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. It isn't slander when it's true.
Is conviction your only measure of right and wrong?

Funny isn't it, how that is the same measure used by many Bush supporters when they attempt to defend his wrongdoing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. You have called Paul Watson a criminal.
Please tell us what crimes he has been convicted of.

Or admit that you are a bullshitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. Yes, I have called Watson a criminal.
A person who engages in criminal activity is a criminal. I and many others also call Bush a criminal. Not because he has been conviceted but because he has engaged in behavior that is criminal.

Now admit that or admit you are a bullshitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. Paul Watson is not a criminal.
He is an environmental activist.

Comparisons to Bush are pathetic and desperate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. That I agree with.
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 10:38 AM by GliderGuider
A comparison of Watson, who may have caused some property damage, to Bush, who may have caused the deaths of a million or more Iraqi civilians, is specious at best and odious at worst.

The attempt to equate property crimes with the wholesale slaughter of people simply because there are statutes against each brings to mind the Ralph Waldo Emerson quotation, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Although in this case I think the mind in question is not so much "little" as driven by ideological considerations and trying to mask that fact in any way possible.

This technique is an example of the well-known logical fallacy of Guilt by Association. It's also an example of a Red Herring and perhaps a Straw Man as well.

Not a bad haul of fallacies for a single comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-12-08 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. The argument is valid
The point was "Is the label "criminal" valid without a conviction.

Watson's property crimes are interfering with people like you and me who are legally doing what they do in order to provide for their families. His actions put lives on his ship and the ships he attacks in danger.

I have a healthy respect for protest. I don't have a problem with his pursuit and harassment by placing his ship in the line of fire. But he crosses the line when he rams ships, boards ships, and bombards ships (with anything). Those actions are criminal. The fact that he gets away with it because enforcement mechanisms are difficult doesn't alter the legal status of his behavior.

That is the extent of the analogy with Bush. If you choose to carry it beyond the valid points of comparison that is on you, not me. The topic had been clearly defined by losthills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #45
97. The Japanese Coast Guard have pistols...
Edited on Sun Mar-16-08 08:19 AM by benEzra
You wrote "BTW, from a braced position, hitting a human-sized target at 150 feet with a pistol is not particularly hard for a well practiced shooter (especially with a full sized police handgun)."

This obviously rules out an intentional targeting of Watson since the relative movement between the two ships is not something you could possibly overcome with a braced position. When the bracing of the wrist or barrel takes place, it is premised on the stability of the entire apparatus doing the bracing, including the "ground". It also required predictability in the location of the target. Moving ships on rough seas is a large hurdle to overcome with any scenario except the 1 in a billion lucky shot rationalization.

I don't disagree per se; I don't think it was an intentional shot, given the movement of the ships and whatnot. It wasn't a one in a billion shot, though; say the distance was 40 or 50 yards max, one person hit. Not the most likely outcome, certainly, but not one in a billion (the odds of hitting a person would be the combined cross-sectional area of every person in the cone of dispersion divided by the area of the cone of dispersion itself, which was probably more like one fifty or one in a hundred). We also don't know that the shooter didn't empty the magazine (say, 12 rounds); handgun rounds wouldn't leave holes in a steel ship, just smudges or dimples that might be missed unless you were looking for them and knew what to look for. With concussion grenades exploding on and over the deck, a few pistol shots and impacts probably wouldn't be noticed unless (as in this case) someone was hit.

Thank God the captain was wearing a vest, though. At sea, without immediate access to surgery, that would have almost certainly been a fatal wound had he not been wearing a vest.

The second obstacle is that gun ownership is rigidly controlled. IF the round came from the Japanese ship, it is unlikely it was the work of some kook that was acting on his own. That doesn't mean I think it came from the Japanese ship, I don't.

I think the kook presumably acting on his own was a member of the Japanese Coast Guard, using his service pistol. The bullet the captain is holding looks like an expanded handgun round, which would seem to rule out any hunting/sniper rifle scenarios.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-11-08 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
48. "..is tantamount to you committing Kamikaze,..."
Kamikaze = Divine Wind. Relates to the massive storms that destroyed invading mongol fleets before they could land and attack Japan in the (1200 and 1300's?).

Yes I know, Japanese pilots, called Kamikazes, killed themselves while flying their bomb loaded planes into ships during WW2. They were trying to be the embodiment of the Divine Wind, thus they 'were' Kamikaze. They weren't 'committing' it.

I'm not Japanese. But I suspect that when you address a people, you'd best use their language properly if you want them to listen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
61. As a target shooter, I think sniper shot is out of the question.
.
.
.

I use a specially made 22-250 with a 27 inch barrel that is 1-1/4 in diameter. A 10x44mm scope with parallax adjustment attached.

That's one heavy barrel, but the design is to prevent what they call "barrel-whip" where the barrel actually twists during firing as a reaction to the rifling, and increases as the barrel warms up.

Bullets were reloads, not by myself, but to my specs - ending up with a muzzle velocity of 4200 fps - and I have trajectory charts to calculate long shots, and knowing the muzzle velocity, and the weight of the bullet are critical.

Typically shooting from a bench-rest mode, shoulder shots of any accuracy impossible due to the weight of the rifle (about 9 pounds - compared to a normal hunting rifle of around 3 pounds) I could keep a 1" circle on a stationary target at 100 - 300 yards with a 3 shot "burst".

Standing shots as I indicated, at least with my heavy gun are near impossible to make with any accuracy.

As for intentionally hitting a moving target from a a moving platform.

I think not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #61
64. It would be like using a 22 to shoot dove while riding a bicycle without holding the handlebars
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #64
69. That is a ridicilous comparison.
Come into a bar in my town and start pontificating about how it would be impossible to hit a moving deer from the saddle of a horse and be prepared to be laughed out of the place. You know nothing about shooting or firearms. You're just looking for some kind of evidence that Paul Watson is a criminal, and there is none. Your theory about the "impossibility" of shooting someone from the deck of a moving boat has already been proven false.

You need to look for a better theory. But you're going to have a hard time coming up with one, because there is no motive for your supposed crime. Watson has no reason to "fake" something like this, and he gains nothing from it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. I had some pistol training
as part my U.S.Army small arms instruction many years ago. It was asserted above, that hitting a human target in the chest at 150 feet is an easy shot. Based on my own experience, that statement doesn't pass the laugh test. I wonder if you would care to comment. I've always thought of effective pistol range as about 30 feet. At 50 yards, you might as well be throwing rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. Actually, these two boats were within rock throwing distance.
Anyone who has read history knows that people have been killing each other with firearms in situations that are identical to this one for centuries. It's not "impossible," and not even that dificult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Are you stating an EXPERT opinion,
or just an opinion?

It's not "impossible," and not even that difficult.


I am an avid shooter and shoot over 300 rounds per week in my International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA) league.

I have a standing bet of $100 offered to anyone that I can hit a six inch circle at 100 yards 9 out of 10 shots with my Dan Wesson 10 inch barrel .44 magnum with open sites. I have won over $600 dollars in the last two years.

I shoot rifles twice a month at distances of up to 400 yards, and consistently maintains between .25 - 1 inch shot groups with hand loads.

Let's say those boats were 200 feet apart, moving the way they were, I don't think I could make my mark 1 out of 10 shots.

I've driven around my families ranch in north Texas shooting wild hogs (on the run) from moving Jeep since I was 13 years old,
so I can give a VERY educated opinion.
You are partly right, it's not impossible, it's just damn hard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. You obviously know a lot about shooting
and about the chacteristics of bulletproof vests, etc. I know a lot about weapons and shooting and am a pretty good shot myself, have had military training and real world hunting experience, etc. I don't know much about bulletproof vests, or even what type Watson was wearing. Some of the points you have raised seem valid, but they are not all in areement with each other. For instance you pointed out that there are rifles aboard Steve Irwin, but you earlier stated that a rifle round would punch right through a bullet proof vest. You noted how easy it would be to shoot the vest and the badge, but did not explain the bruising on Watson's chest that was examined by a Doctor, or how a ruse like that would be carried out under the noses of a film crew from Animal Planet.

The boats were much closer than 200 feet. They were lobbing grenades and stink bombs at each other. I'd say they were within fifty feet of each other. The Japanese were lobbing flash bangs because they were afraid of being boarded. It's difficult to make any credible analysis of the bullet in that picture. It looks like a .38 or a 9mm to me. It could be a piece of shrapnel from the flash bangs or one of their own stink bombs (whatever those are,) or a bullet that ricocheted off one of the boats.

I have pointed out, and will point out again that people have been shooting each other in these types of encounters for centuries. Hitting a man under these circumstances is far from "impossible."

I don't know what happened. I don't see a logical scenario for it to have been faked, myself-- you have to account for matching damage to his jacket, the vest, the badge and to his shoulder to make that work and to believe that all the many witnesses were in on it. And you have to believe that Watson is crazy and a liar.

The only "evidence" that has been presented that Watson faked it is the imagined "impossibility" of the shot. I don't see any impossibility or implausability there, and I don't think the "faking it" scenarios hold water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. it ain't shinola
"I have pointed out, and will point out again that people have been shooting each other in these types of encounters for centuries. Hitting a man under these circumstances is far from "impossible.""

Why do you keep trying to draw an equivalency between your cited cases where riflemen are laying down a wall of fire, and a single shot sniper attack?

It isn't going to fly no matter how many times you keep saying it. Repetition doesn't create truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #73
74. it ain't shinola
"I have pointed out, and will point out again that people have been shooting each other in these types of encounters for centuries. Hitting a man under these circumstances is far from "impossible.""

Why do you keep trying to draw an equivalency between your cited cases where riflemen are laying down a wall of fire, and a single shot sniper attack?

It isn't going to fly no matter how many times you keep saying it. Repetition doesn't create truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Amazing.
You wrote:
"You have been proven wrong, and you can't accept it. I would like to know if you are over 17 years old. You have not produced a single shred of evidence that Captain Watson was not shot by the Japanese as he says."

When you just read this by spoonman:
"Every aspect of this situation clearly indicates it was a fake.

I have been hand-loading ammo for 23 years. While in the army I worked at Aberdeen proving grounds testing various weapons and body armor.

I was a second on the all army shooting team, and have forgotten more about ballistics than the "Dumb-dumb" who wrote the crap about the "dumb-dumb".

It is very well known that Watson wears body armor, had they wanted him dead, a high velocity full metal jacket bullet would have penetrated the vest, badge and the steel bulkhead behind him! The shock channel would have jellied both lungs and heart, and even if the ship was equipped with a full surgical suite, he would have NEVER survived!

To add to this, slowing down the velocity of a high caliber rifle to pistol velocities generally results in a HUGE loss of accuracy due to the inability of the powder to burn uniformly with so much empty space in the rifle case. (simple terms)

I have viewed every video, and read all the statements that can be found on the web, and it all adds up to one conclusion.

The bullet was clearly fired at a near perfect straight trajectory into the vest. This is clearly indicated in the video by the near perfect mushroomed shape of the bullet (pause the vid, and you can see it well).
This means someone laid out the vest and carefully "punched" a bullet into it. It looked so familiar to me, because I've done it over a hundred times.

The bullet was also massive, not a small military caliber, and not a ball ammo pistol round. So the random handgun theory is blown too. If one of the JCG shot his pistol it would have been loaded with standard ball ammo which has a full metal copper. The video clearly shows NO copper. Jacket separation only occurs at VERY close distance - less the 10 feet.

In Watson's own words he felt "a thud in his upper chest".

The laws of physics are not negated because your cause is just my friend.
The size and shape of the bullet combined with the penetration of the vest and damage to the badge CLEARLY indicated a HUGE transference of energy.
Had he been wearing that vest when the bullet impacted it, it would have sent him two feet back and damn near knocked him out of his shoes.
He would have survived easily, but they would have had to pick his fat ass up of the deck!

Prove it to yourself, take a 1/2 ounce pure lead fishing weight and a regular sized hammer, and see how much force it takes to changes it's shape. After you try it, you'll agree with me."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. This one will stop a .308 Sherlock.
https://www.dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/779809753.ht...

SPECIFICATIONS:
* Complete Coverage with Side Protection
* Color: Navy Blue
* (NIJ 0101.03 Certified).
* Includes 5"x8" Flexible Trauma Plate.

II: .357 Mag., 158 gr. JSP, 6.5" Barrel, 1395 FPS;, 9mm, 124 gr, FMJ, 4-4.75" Barrel, 1175 FPS

III: High-Powered Rifle, 7.62mm, 150 gr., 308 Winchester, FMJ, 2750 FPS.

IIIA: Stops 9mm, 124 gr. FMJ at 1400 fps (10" barrel), .44 Magnum, 240 gr. Gas Checked, 5,5" to 6.25" barrel", SWC at 1400 fps.

IV: Armor Piercing Rifle 30-06 AP 166 gr. 2850 FPS.

State size when ordering.

It comes in Small, Medium, Large, and Extra Large sizes.

Small: Contact us for size.
Medium: Chest:38-40,Waist:34
Large Chest:42-44,Waist:38,
Extra Large Chest:46-48,Waist:42

Many Models to Choose From.


You can buy it for $550.00.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. ?
spoonman wrote:
"Every aspect of this situation clearly indicates it was a fake.

I have been hand-loading ammo for 23 years. While in the army I worked at Aberdeen proving grounds testing various weapons and body armor.

I was a second on the all army shooting team, and have forgotten more about ballistics than the "Dumb-dumb" who wrote the crap about the "dumb-dumb".

It is very well known that Watson wears body armor, had they wanted him dead, a high velocity full metal jacket bullet would have penetrated the vest, badge and the steel bulkhead behind him! The shock channel would have jellied both lungs and heart, and even if the ship was equipped with a full surgical suite, he would have NEVER survived!

To add to this, slowing down the velocity of a high caliber rifle to pistol velocities generally results in a HUGE loss of accuracy due to the inability of the powder to burn uniformly with so much empty space in the rifle case. (simple terms)

I have viewed every video, and read all the statements that can be found on the web, and it all adds up to one conclusion.

The bullet was clearly fired at a near perfect straight trajectory into the vest. This is clearly indicated in the video by the near perfect mushroomed shape of the bullet (pause the vid, and you can see it well).
This means someone laid out the vest and carefully "punched" a bullet into it. It looked so familiar to me, because I've done it over a hundred times.

The bullet was also massive, not a small military caliber, and not a ball ammo pistol round. So the random handgun theory is blown too. If one of the JCG shot his pistol it would have been loaded with standard ball ammo which has a full metal copper. The video clearly shows NO copper. Jacket separation only occurs at VERY close distance - less the 10 feet.

In Watson's own words he felt "a thud in his upper chest".

The laws of physics are not negated because your cause is just my friend.
The size and shape of the bullet combined with the penetration of the vest and damage to the badge CLEARLY indicated a HUGE transference of energy.
Had he been wearing that vest when the bullet impacted it, it would have sent him two feet back and damn near knocked him out of his shoes.
He would have survived easily, but they would have had to pick his fat ass up of the deck!


Prove it to yourself, take a 1/2 ounce pure lead fishing weight and a regular sized hammer, and see how much force it takes to changes it's shape. After you try it, you'll agree with me."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #76
78. Here's a bullet proof vest demonstration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4j5AzJP0ANA

The spent round looks just like the one Watson held up.

Here's a video of a guy getting shot with a .357 mag. It does NOT "knock him back 2 feet," and no one has to "pick his ass off the deck."
Looks more like he "felt a thud....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HP62Doe3Ak&feature=rela...

Okay, it's time to go do your homework now....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-13-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Check out Wicki if you want to educate yourself
or just keep acting foolish...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest

"A ballistic vest or bullet-proof vest is an item of armor that absorbs the impact from gun-fired projectiles and explosive fragments fired at the torso. Soft vests made from layers of tightly-woven fibres protect wearers from projectiles fired from handguns, shotguns, and shrapnel from explosives such as hand grenades. When metal or ceramic plates are used with a soft vest, it can also protect wearers from shots fired from rifles. Soft vests are commonly worn by police forces, private citizens and private security guards, and hard-plate reinforced vests are mainly worn by combat soldiers in the armies of various nations as well as police armed response units.

"Type IIIA
(High Velocity 9 mm; .44 Magnum) This armor protects against 9 mm Full Metal Jacketed Round Nose (FMJ RN) bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) at a reference velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s 30 ft/s) and .44 Magnum Semi Jacketed Hollow Point (SJHP) bullets, with nominal masses of 15.6 g (240 gr) at a reference velocity of 436 m/s (1430 ft/s 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in .
"Type III
(Rifles) This armor protects against 7.62 mm Full Metal Jacketed (FMJ) bullets (U.S. Military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.6 g (148 gr) at a reference velocity of 847 m/s (2780 ft/s 30 ft/s) or less. It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in .
"Type IV
(Armour Piercing Rifle) This armor protects against .30 calibre armour piercing (AP) bullets (U.S. Military designation M2 AP), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr) at a reference velocity of 878 m/s (2880 ft/s 30 ft/s). It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in . "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #79
89. Educate yourself with the statements given by Sea Shepard
QUOTE - Fortunately, the bullet was stopped by his Kevlar vest. The bullet struck just above the heart and mangled Captain Watsons anti-poaching badge

QUOTE - A single bullet was fired by what must have been an expert marksman at Pauls chest, which embedded in his Kevlar vest and also damaged a metal badge worn behind the vest. Fortunately, this stopped the bullet penetrating his flesh.

QUOTE - Dr. Page pried a bullet from Captain Watsons Kevlar vest and examined the bruise where the bullet impacted. Watsons Sea Shepherd anti-poaching badge took up some of the force of the impact, but it also cut the skin beneath after it was mangled by the bullet.

Did the vest stop it or did the badge stop it?

If the badge stopped it, (it was mangled and cut the skin according to them) then it penetrated the vest completely, casting even more doubt as to the caliber of the bullet.

If the vest stopped it, how to it mangle the badge bad enough to cut him?

Any reasonable and logical person would concluded that a "mangle METAL badge" and a cut to the skin from that badge indicates a substantial amount of force. But alas, Watson only felt a "thump", and showed no, (zero, nada, big fucking donut) amount of pain or trauma from said event.

THINK IT THROUGH!!!!!!!!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. I didn't see any plates in Watson's vest. Maybethey were there and I missed it.
OK I did as you asked. I also looked up a couple of primers on personal body armor.
What they taught me was the difference between a soft vest and one with plates.

Now I've never used a vest, and I've never played with one either. I have little to no personal knowledge of the characteristics that are being debated. What I just read after a google, however, doesn't contradict anything spoonman wrote.
It is hard to tell what you are actually trying to say, however, since your style of argumentation doesn't include a logical presentation of your relevant points.
I'm GUESSING that you are trying to show that Watson wouldn't have necessarily been knocked down by the impact of the bullet. If that is true, then I concede the point, but as far as I can see it would depend on two variables:
1. Was he wearing hard or soft armor.
2. Precisely what weight/load hit the vest.

I saw no plates in the video of Watson, so I believe he was wearing a soft vest.
According to the primers on PBA those are the type that transmit a lot of shock to the flesh.

While we don't know with absolute certainty that Watson would have been knocked down if the shot were real, we do know that he was NOT knocked down.

If he HAD been knocked down that would have been strong evidence that he had been shot then and there.

IMO Soft vest, heavy round, and lack of shock effect support the theory of deceit more than they support the theory of attempted assassination.


What I find most wrong with your argument however, is how you dismiss all other considerations in your quest to find something - anything - to hang your beliefs on. You move from one bad argument to the next, ignoring the mounting evidence against what you want to believe.
Why don't we see if he turns the evidence over to the police and then wait for their report.


Did you read the comments that went with the youtube video you posted:

"In Florida in 1997,a drug dealer shot a cop with a 12ga. slug.The cop was wearing a bullitt proof vest,although the slug did not penetrate the vest,the muzzle energy of the slug killed the cop."

"first they used either small caliber bullets or bullets that are flat. i would like to see a test with a 22-250, 25-06, and a 700 nitro express. second...i would have shot them in the head instead of the chest."

im curious to see what would happen if it was shot with a barrett m107(.50cal sniperrifle). that would be interesting

"even if the vest stopped the 44 mag. the impact would break some ribs bc of how powerful it is believe me i know i have one."

"would much rather have broken ribs than be dead."

"at vest, a .44 mag to the chest from close range might compress the rib cage enough to be lethal... Ive taken four .380ACP's to the chest through a level 4 and it felt like an airsoft bb through cardboard, without the trauma plates though, it was like a hammer and knocked the wind out of me."

"Depends, Even without penetration, A bullet impact from a large caliber weapon can be lethal. If it hits you in the chest it can give concussion damage or stop your heart."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #80
81. "Myth Busters" had to debunk this twice
Episodes #25 and #38.
So many viewers couldn't believe the myth was false,
they had to revisit it and debunk it again.
Episode #38 is on youtube http://youtube.com/watch?v=QCzD5uhSViY


http://mythbustersresults.com/episode25
Episode 25: "Brown Note, Water Torture"
Air Date: February 16, 2005
A person will be propelled violently backwards if hit by a bullet.
busted
A bullet fired by a gun cannot hold enough momentum. According to Newton’s third law, if the bullet were to knock the target 20 feet (6 metres) back, the shooter would have to be knocked back 20 feet (6 metres), as well.
(This myth was revisited in episode 38 and it was busted again.)

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode38
Episode 38: "MythBusters Revisited"
Air Date: October 12, 2005
REVISITED: A body struck by a bullet will be propelled violently backwards. (From episode 25)
re-busted
Even a .50 Caliber bullet does not have the momentum to knock a person backwards. If it were possible, the shooter would be knocked backwards as well - as per Newton’s Third Law.


http://www.tv.com/mythbusters/brown-note/episode/384225...
Originally aired: Wednesday February 16, 2005 on Discovery
Blown Away:
'Blown Away' was indended to prove or disprove the myth that, like in Hollywood movies, you'll get thrown back when shot with a gun. First, they tested this myth by shooting at a dead pig that was barely hanging from a hook. Only the 44 Magnum and the high powered rifles were enough to knock the pig off - and it only flew back a few inches. Not several feet, like in the movies.
They also did the same tests with buster hanging there with a bulletproof vest on. The results were the same.
This myth was busted - there is no way you'll fly back when shot. In movies, they simply use a harness and yank the person backwards when shot.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #81
85. Well duh!
Of course the movies are dramatized for effect, but you damn sure feel more than a "thump"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. You said "it would have sent him two feet back", and that's incorrect
This has been debunked by Myth Busters, and in videos and links given in losthills' posts.

Here's what you wrote in post #76: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

"The laws of physics are not negated because your cause is just my friend.
The size and shape of the bullet combined with the penetration of the vest and damage to the badge CLEARLY indicated a HUGE transference of energy.
Had he been wearing that vest when the bullet impacted it, it would have sent him two feet back and damn near knocked him out of his shoes.
He would have survived easily, but they would have had to pick his fat ass up of the deck!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. I wouldn't take mythbusters as gospel
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:58 PM by kristopher
From what I've heard of the Mythbuster segment, they shot a weighted target that was hanging from a hook. That is significantly different than a 200lb person balanced on their feet being the recipient of an unexpected hammer blow to the chest.

I don't have highspeed so I don't know their tests, but frequently their proofs are extremely limited in scope. For example, in this case, do they test soft vests without plates? That is what cops usually wear in daily duty and it is what Watson's video showed a bullet being pulled out of. If there had been a plate, it would have distributed the impact in a much different manner.

This is reposted from one of OK's earlier posts. Are you saying this report is a lie because of the mythbuster segement?
If not, then how do you reconcile the two?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0D6 ...
Police Badge and Vest Stop Slugs Fired at Two Officers
By JAMES C. MCKINLEY JR.
Published: June 11, 1991

Two police officers were shot in the Bronx yesterday, apparently by a deranged man who had attacked another officer minutes earlier and stolen his gun, the police said. Neither officer was seriously injured because their bulletproof vests stopped the slugs.

The gunman, identified as Everton Brown, 33 years old, of 125 Eastern Parkway in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, was arrested after he emptied the stolen .38-caliber service revolver at seven officers from the 44th Precinct who were chasing him up a staircase, the police said.

"A shot went off," Officer Peter Segreti, one of the officers chasing the suspect, said. "When we got to the second floor, the officer was lying down, saying 'I'm shot! I'm shot!' It looked like a war. He was lying there and they pulled him out of the line of fire."

One of the bullets hit Officer Alberto Morales, 35, squarely in his badge, twisting the metal shield but failing to penetrate the Kevlar vest underneath. Another officer, Patrick Rodriguez, 24, was struck low in the right side of his chest and knocked down. Though the vest stopped the slug, Officer Rodriguez was admitted to Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center for observation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #96
99. So do the experiment yourself, or do the math yourself, this is high-school physics
You can do the math yourself, or do the experiment yourself, it's simple high-school physics,
call your local high-school and ask their real-life physics teacher if you have any doubts.

Myth Busters used a pig carcass and a crash-test dummy and several weapons,
you can probably rent the episodes on DVD or watch them at a library that has high-speed internet.

As far as that NY Times article, people can have instinctive neurological reflex actions which cause them to fall,
but they weren't knocked down by the force of the bullet.

Spoonman already acknowledged a bullet won't knock you down in post #108: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
"You stated that a pistol shot would have knocked him down.
I probably over stated on that one, point being was that he would have felt more than a thump."

Watson felt a thump and got a nasty bruise, consistent with being shot while wearing body armor.
If you can, see the youtube videos in post #92: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Here's another reference: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBL...
"However, there is a myth, kept alive by portrayals of shooting victims on television and in films being hurled backwards, that victims are actually "knocked down" or displaced by being struck with the force of a bullet. In fact, real gunshot victims relate that they had no immediate reaction. (Fackler, 1998) The maximum momentum transferred from different small arms projectiles, inluding large caliber rifles and shotguns, to an 80 kg body is only 0.01 to 0.18 m/s, negligible compared to the 1 to 2 m/s velocity of a pedestrian. (Karger and Knewbuehl, 1996)"

You don't have to take Myth Busters as gospel, there are plenty of resources on the web and in real life to verify this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. My first experience shooting a large caliber gun
was a 12 guage when I was 6. I literally did a back flip from the recoil.


There are several factors at play regarding this point and you aren't acknowledging them much less addressing them.

1. Balance. The amount of energy it takes to place an object in motion is NOT the same as the amount of energy it takes to alter the trajectory of an object that is either in motion or balanced.

2. The vest. The manner in which the kinetic energy of the bullet is transfered to the target is affected by whether the target has a vest or not. And whether the vest is a hard or soft vest. The hard vest distributes the energy over a wider footprint than a soft vest. Read up on how the two different configurations function to stop a bullet. In the case of no vest we have yet another manner of force transfer. I'd describe the differences this way:
Hard vest: Car hitting a solid concrete wall
Soft vest: Car hitting a very taught and strong net
No vest: Car hitting a series of barrells filled with water.

3. The description of what your mythbuster's episode was testing for does not seem to incorporate the soft vest impact. However, your reference (Fackler, 1998) does indirectly address it in the section on methods of transfering the kinetic energy from the bullet to the target. Note the discussion is focused on the rapidity with which the energy is transfered. Of our three scenarios, the hard vest transfers the energy most quickly, but it also distributes it over a large footprint. The duration for a no vest scenario is one where there is a release of energy over time as the bullet penetrates. The soft vest (as Watson wore) transfers the energy very nearly as rapidly as the hard vest, but it does a much worse job of distributing the energy over a large footprint.


I think the difficulty of the shot is the principle evidence of a staged event. If Watson had been knocked off balance, I would have been more willing to accept his story of having been shot. At best, you've argued that his failure to show a reaction to impact isn't proof of fraud (I do not yet accept that you've addressed the soft vest etc). It isn't a positive proof of his account of events.

There is also the issue of motive. Do you really think the Japanese would do something so stupid? If they wanted to assassinate him strongly enough to put a person on board who could make that one in a million shot, don't you think they would have been a little more discrete in the construction and execution (no pun intended) of a plan to that end?

I still think Watson staged the whole thing. It is obviously something that isn't out of character for him.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #100
105. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #105
107. You need to back off a little on the personal attacks.
Lots of people in this country learn to shoot at a young age. To us, a gun is a tool just like a hammer, nothing more, nothing less. Apparently you have a problem dealing with a discussion on the merits so you continually resort to personal attacks. I'm asking you to cease and desist that line of argumentation. If you can't or choose not to engage on the merits of the arguments, I suggest you keep your counsel to yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #99
101. References re being shot w/ vest
Edited on Mon Mar-17-08 10:28 AM by kristopher
Regarding the physics
KE = 1/2 M V squared

If we compare an 8 lb (3584g) sledge traveling at 2 feet/second with a 20 gram projectile traveling at 1500fps we get the following:
Sledgehammer: 7,168
Bullet: 22,500


The greater the number the higher the amount of kinetic energy. The bullet hits with triple the impact of a medium large sledgehammer.

This is from a site that sells vests:

"Not to be confused with Rifle Plates, Blunt Trauma Pads are added to help lessen the blunt trauma, i.e., bruising (or a cracked bone). that happens when a bullet is stopped by a vest.
Even though your vest stops the bullet, it still hits like a sledgehammer a Blunt Trauma Pad helps spread out this impact and lessen the severity of injury to the mid-Chest and the Sternum bone that is so vulnerable just under the skin."
http://bulletproofme.com/Body_Armor_Accessories_Conceal...


Yahoo Answers:
How does it feel to get shot with a 9mm while wearing a vest?
Has anyone ever been shot with a 9mm, or 45ACP round while wearing a level I or II vest?
How did it feel and could you still shoot back? Or were you incapacitated for a brief period?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080212080...


The Professional TRAUMA plate is made out of a special material that is both light and strong.

Trauma Plate is added to help lessen the blunt trauma, bruising (or a cracked bone). that happens when a bullet is stopped by a vest.

even though your vest stops the bullet, it still hits like a sledgehammer a Trauma Plate helps spread out this impact and lessen the severity of injury to the mid-Chest and the Sternum bone that is so vulnerable just under the skin. Vests are NIJ certified WITHOUT a Trauma Plate and thus we strongly recommend The Trauma Plate .
http://www.zfi-inc.com/ZFI/Products/TRAUMA+PLATE.htm

NIJ Certification

A NIJ Certified model has successfully stopped 48 rounds in laboratory conditions. These conditions, considered "worst case," are usually beyond what you'll ever encounter on the street. During certification, vests are shot both dry and wet and at various angles. Each vest is placed against a soft clay surface and shot in a predetermined pattern to test for backface deformation that can cause blunt trauma. (Since a bullet hits with a sledgehammer impact, blunt trauma can debilitate your ability to respond to an attack.)

http://www.bodyarmor.com.cn/apply.asp

etc. etc. etc.

A thump?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. Check your math. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. the math is correct
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-17-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. No, the math is off by three orders of magnitude. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. You're right. Still buy the "thump" claim?
Edited on Tue Mar-18-08 04:21 AM by kristopher
I was using kilograms for bullet weight and grams for the hammer. I've guestimated these numbers, but I left it there because it was close enough to show that Watson's description is extremely suspect. If we use the .308 stats, the bullet weight is much lower, but the speed is much higher. I estimated the hammer swing as a horizontal swing instead of downward. If downward the speed would be greater, maybe 8fps(?).
So refining the numbers would probably bring them closer.


Regarding the physics
KE = 1/2 M V squared

If we compare an 8 lb (3584g) sledge traveling at 2 feet/second with a 20 gram projectile traveling at 1500fps we get the following:
Sledgehammer: 7,168
Bullet: 22,500


Sledgehammer:
a. (swung sideways) 1/2*3584g *2fps^2 = 1792 * 4 = 7,168
b. (swung down) 1/2*3584g *8fps^2 = 1792 * 64 = 114,688

Bullet:
a. (original WAG) 1/2 * 20g * 1500^2 = 10 * 2,250,000 = 225,000,000
b. (.308 rifle) 1/2 * 11.66g * 2743^2 = 5.83 * 7,524,029 = 43,865,089
c. (.44 mag) 1/2 * 11.66g * 1610^2 = 5.83 * 2,592,100 = 15,111,983
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. From the photos, this looks like a 9mm or .40 handgun round. At 50 yards,
a 9mm is 8 grams at 1030 feet per second. A .40 is 11.7 grams at 960 feet per second at 50 yards. Those are assuming full-length barrels.

Because momentum is conserved, the "thump" is a lot worse on the shooter's end than it is on the person wearing the vest, BTW (because the shooter absorbs the recoil of the bullet at full velocity PLUS the recoil from the propellant gases, whereas the vest wearer absorbs only the bullet momentum at significantly reduced velocity).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. My friend, you are talking in circles.
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 03:40 AM by kristopher
"Because momentum is conserved, the "thump" is a lot worse on the shooter's end than it is on the person wearing the vest".

You are using the point being debated as your argument. The point of this subthread is the effect of the impact on the wearer or a soft vest. You don't prove that point by asserting your conclusion as an argument.

The charts on this page show the weights and speeds of various types of firearms. http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBL...

I find three problems with your remarks.

1. You are trying to judge the size of the projectile from a video. Since you lack perspective clues such as knowing the relative size of the hand holding the round, that is a very difficult thing to do accurately.

2. Firearms are designed to mitigate the kick. Soft vests are not designed so much to reduce the impact trauma as they are designed to prevent penetration. When you stop that bullet in a short distance (thickness of the vest) your transfer of kinetic energy is much different than when the round penetrates. That is why air bags in cars work.

3. On the link above there is a diagram of bullet deformation related to speed on impact. Look at it and look at the round in the picture.


You totally ignore the large amount of anecdotal evidence and the evidence from sites selling body armor that ALL describe the impact as "like being hit with a sledgehammer".
If you are having trouble believing the comparative numbers between the various bullets and the sledgehammer, then first, work out the numbers yourself. Read up on how the energy in a soft vest is spread out. When the round hits the vest it is focused on a spot perhaps 3mm X 3mm. But the vest does spread the force over a wider area so it is easy to understand that overall force/area effect is like a "sledgehammer".

Also, what you are doing is, in order to address the lack of impact effect, you are adding to the difficulty of the shot by making it a handgun instead of a rifle.

I think you are making Watson's claim less credible, not more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #110
112. Observations...
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 10:19 AM by benEzra
I find three problems with your remarks.

1. You are trying to judge the size of the projectile from a video. Since you lack perspective clues such as knowing the relative size of the hand holding the round, that is a very difficult thing to do accurately.

No, it is quite clear that the round is a handgun round from the proportions of the expanded round. Expanded rifle bullets look quite different than expanded handgun bullets. Lacking an absolute size reference, the caliber of the handgun round (.357, 9mm, .40, .45) cannot be determined, but rifle vs. handgun can indeed be determined without reference to an absolute size scale. Observe:

Expanded rifle bullet, high impact velocity (which would have gone right through that vest and out the back):



A rifle bullet downloaded to handgun velocities (so as not to penetrate the vest) would have expanded less, and would have looked much like this:



Note that the rifle bullets are all quite long for their width.

Here is a pair of expanded handgun bullets; the one on the right has undergone a core-jacket separation and looks just like the one the captain is holding in the photo:



Note the pronounced cavity still present in the expanded bullet, as contrasted with the rounded front of an expanded rifle bullet.

2. Firearms are designed to mitigate the kick. Soft vests are not designed so much to reduce the impact trauma as they are designed to prevent penetration. When you stop that bullet in a short distance (thickness of the vest) your transfer of kinetic energy is much different than when the round penetrates. That is why air bags in cars work.

The "thump" is not kinetic energy, it is momentum. The kinetic energy is expended in stretching and breaking of the Kevlar fibers of the vest and is ultimately dissipated as heat; the momentum is what is transferred to the wearer. If you have excessive backface deformation, you can have injury from the deformation, but it would still be a "thump."

It is physically impossible for a firearm to transfer more momentum to the target than to the person shooting, unless the rifle has a VERY high gas to projectile mass ratio and is fitted with an excellent brake (allowing some of the forward projectile momentum to be offset by rearward gas momentum). Otherwise, forward momentum (bullet + gas) = recoil momentum (gun), period.

3. On the link above there is a diagram of bullet deformation related to speed on impact. Look at it and look at the round in the picture.

I am quite familiar with that; look at the actual photos I posted, though. That round is a handgun bullet. A rifle bullet would not have expanded significantly at any velocity that the vest in question would stop.

The "thump" comes from momentum, and cannot, based on simple physics, transfer more momentum than the gun transferred to the shooter at the moment the shot was fired. Momentum is absolutely conserved, and the total momentum (forward + recoil) of the gun-bullet-gas system must be exactly the same an instant after firing as it was before firing. Hence the forward momentum and the rearward momentum are symmetrical, same amplitude but opposite signs. Kinetic energy, on the other hand, is not symmetrical, and much more is delivered to the target than the shooter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #112
114. Thank you for the tutoral, but...
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 11:20 AM by kristopher
I don't think you've been following the thread. I don't blame you, but the model I'm talking to is the one losthills presented in post 97.

"You're talking about pistol ammo. In World War two they had silenced pistols and sub-machine guns. Special Forces were still using these relics in Vietnam in the sixties. In the seventies they developed suppressors for "real" sniper rifles, 30.06 Springfield and .308 Winchester. They had to be used with specially loaded lower velocity rounds. You can't truly "silence" these weapons, but you can "suppress" the crack so that witnesses can't identify where it came from. Of course the technology has advanced since then and they have truly "mind blowing" weapons today.

Your focus on verbiage in the mechanism of energy transfer is very educational and I thank you for the information; however, it never really addresses the basics of the question. You seem to be stating that the stretching and heat transfer are the predominant means of energy transfer when the projectile impacts the vest.

Ok, that may well be true. But given the relative difference between the KE of a sledge and the KE of a any of these bullets, there is no reason to conclude that the residual energy is below that of a sledgehammer. A major part of the vest design is to enlarge the footprint of the area where 'work' is being done.

Based on the anecdotal evidence in news reports of gunshot victims that were wearing soft vests the impact is described as being like a sledgehammer.

That is bolstered by the product performance descriptions offered by sales outlets for personal body armor.

That, in turn, is bolstered by the relative amounts of KE for any of the weapons being discussed, compared to the KE of a sledgehammer.

My belief is that Watson used a handgun to salt the vest before he left port, hit himself in the chest (probably with a regular hammer or something like it) and staged the entire thing to up the ante in his struggle. I can see some scenarios where he was shot by someone from the Japanese boat, but the probability of those scenarios seems much lower than the probability of Watson faking it.
The pistol round, a ship to ship shot in heavy seas while underway at high speed resulting in a heart shot stopped fortuitously by the very emblem of his existence without even a hint of the "sledgehammer" type blow?

As Bill Clinton loves to say "GIVE. ME. A. BREAK!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. I think we partially agree, at least that the weapon was a handgun.
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 02:04 PM by benEzra
I don't think you've been following the thread. I don't blame you, but the model I'm talking to is the one losthills presented in post 97.

I wrote post #97. You must be speaking of #67?

(losthills)

You're talking about pistol ammo. In World War two they had silenced pistols and sub-machine guns. Special Forces were still using these relics in Vietnam in the sixties. In the seventies they developed suppressors for "real" sniper rifles, 30.06 Springfield and .308 Winchester. They had to be used with specially loaded lower velocity rounds. You can't truly "silence" these weapons, but you can "suppress" the crack so that witnesses can't identify where it came from. Of course the technology has advanced since then and they have truly "mind blowing" weapons today.

However, a high powered rifle may not have been needed here. These boats were within rock throwing distance of each other.

I think you and I partially agree, at least that the weapon was a handgun and not a rifle. I object to the "subsonic sniper rifle" theory presented above, for several reasons, one of which is that the recovered bullet appears to be a pistol bullet and not a rifle round.

Addressing the rifle theory, a low-velocity rifle round would not have expanded and would have been much longer than it was wide. Suppressed rifles still use rifle bullets, which do not produce the expansion profile suggested by the photos. A suppressed .308 is still a .308, with .308 ballistics, and would go right through a NIJ Level IIIA vest, but there are also rifle calibers designed for subsonic sniping (.300 Whisper is the most obvious example); those use very long and heavy-for-caliber bullets in a very short case and would be unlikely to expand at all. I think it is pretty obvious that the bullet recovered from the vest is a handgun round; I seriously doubt that anyone contemplating an assassination would use an antique shooting patched lead rounds.

Your focus on verbiage in the mechanism of energy transfer is very educational and I thank you for the information; however, it never really addresses the basics of the question. You seem to be stating that the stretching and heat transfer are the predominant means of energy transfer when the projectile impacts the vest.

Ok, that may well be true. But given the relative difference between the KE of a sledge and the KE of a any of these bullets, there is no reason to conclude that the residual energy is below that of a sledgehammer. A major part of the vest design is to enlarge the footprint of the area where 'work' is being done.

Based on the anecdotal evidence in news reports of gunshot victims that were wearing soft vests the impact is described as being like a sledgehammer.

If the vest was NIJ IIIA (which is designed to stop .44 magnum and shotgun slugs), a 9mm impact will be comparatively mild; what might feel like a sledgehammer behind a NIJ Level II vest would be milder behind a IIIA. Also keep in mind that we are likely speaking of a pistol round, which has an order of magnitude less momentum than a shotgun slug; the momentum of a pistol bullet is more comparable to a good swing from a carpenter's hammer--which, cushioned by body armor and clothing underneath, could be a good thump and leave a bruise, but which won't knock you back or put you down. There are numerous incidents of police officers wearing IIIA vests getting shot during gunfights (by pistol rounds) and not noticing until after the fight was over, under the stress of the moment.

Perhaps I am being overly pedantic in distinguishing between energy and momentum, but it is momentum that causes the whack/thump you feel, and energy dissipation that tears the threads, heats the vest, mangles the badge, and leaves the bruise. The momentum of a bullet and a hammer are comparable, but the energies are not (the bullet KE greatly exceeds that of the hammer).

My belief is that Watson used a handgun to salt the vest before he left port, hit himself in the chest (probably with a regular hammer or something like it) and staged the entire thing to up the ante in his struggle. I can see some scenarios where he was shot by someone from the Japanese boat, but the probability of those scenarios seems much lower than the probability of Watson faking it.

Quite possible; given the scant evidence we have, that theory is just as plausible (on a purely evidential standpoint) as mine, though it may violate Occam's Razor to some extent. I agree with you that the bullet was probably a handgun round.

The easy way to test your theory would be to examine the vest for powder burns (near-contact distance) or diffuse powder residue (few feet to a few yards away); if there were no powder residue, the shot likely came from the other ship, but powder burns or residue would conclusively prove a close-range shot. The Steve Irwin could also be examined for smudges/dimples from other bullet impacts (handgun rounds do not typically make holes in thick steel, but rather leave lead smudges and possibly dimples or slight cratering), which would suggest someone was shooting at the ship and hit the captain with a lucky (or unlucky) shot.

The pistol round, a ship to ship shot in heavy seas while underway at high speed resulting in a heart shot stopped fortuitously by the very emblem of his existence without even a hint of the "sledgehammer" type blow?

I agree that it was certainly a fortuitous event for the Steve Irwin's mission (I understand the "too good to be true" aspect here). But all we know right now is that the vest was shot at some point, the bullet that was recovered appears to be a law-enforcement-type pistol bullet, and such things have certainly happened before in the law enforcement realm. If multiple shots were fired, hitting someone on the Steve Irwin would not be the most probable outcome, but it would certainly not be a freak occurrence given the relatively small size of the cone of dispersion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Coincidentally, the Japanese are very vocal in calling for the Australian police to investigate
"The easy way to test your theory would be to examine the vest for powder burns (near-contact distance) or diffuse powder residue (few feet to a few yards away); if there were no powder residue, the shot likely came from the other ship, but powder burns or residue would conclusively prove a close-range shot. The Steve Irwin could also be examined for smudges/dimples from other bullet impacts (handgun rounds do not typically make holes in thick steel, but rather leave lead smudges and possibly dimples or slight cratering), which would suggest someone was shooting at the ship and hit the captain with a lucky (or unlucky) shot."

Let's see what Watson does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #114
118. You're shooting a dead horse....
Watson beats himself in the chest with a hammer?

Your theories are like creationism-- they are absurd. You want to find fault with Watson so badly that you keep constructing more and more fanciful theories that are becoming more and more dificult for a non-absorbed person to believe.

The easiest thing to believe here is that the Steve Irwin was dogging the whalers, making it impossible for them to do their job, even lobbing stink bombs onto their deck, perhaps threatening to board them, shots were fired in anger, and one of them hit Watson in the chest. That is what the known facts indicate.

There is no evidence to prove otherwise. All theories that the haters have presented so far have been "shot down." Every bullet has to go somewhere. That is why it's illegal to shoot guns in the air to celebrate hollidays. One hit Captain Watson in the chest. That is a fact unless the haters have some secret evidence that they've been holding back.....

I'll be waiting patiently for the "Smoking Hammer."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #106
117. You've made two claims
You've made two claims:
1) He would have been knocked back two feet.
2) He would have felt more than a thump.

The results of "doing the math" will be distance and pressure.

You should also include two additional cases:
1) benEzra has made the case that it could have been a smaller pistol
2) You've used your own experience with shotgun recoil at age six.


BTW, Google has a built-in calculator which also does unit conversions:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1+kilojoule+to+gra...

1 kilojoule = 10 763 910.4 gram * ((feet / sec) squared)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. I don't understand
I don't really see your point.

I didn't make the first "claim", spoonman did.
I did suggest that the evidence shows spoonman is probably correct. So far, I've seen nothing to contradict the anecdotal evidence in the newspaper reports of police with vests getting shot and having it feel like being hit with a sledgehammer. I've seen no evidence that contradicts to statements of retailers that VESTS WITHOUT PLATES feel like a sledgehammer hit when you are shot.

I agree that we are looking to measure the work done by the projectile as it transfers kinetic energy to the target. However BenMeyers is right in that an unknown quantity energy is dissipated at heat. The residual work is measure in pressure that is acts on the wearer of the vest. Unfortunately for us amateur detectives, we have no convincing, easy way of determining how much energy is dissipated by the vest as measured in heat and how much is transferred as motion to the wearer of the vest as measured in pressure.

If we had detailed information on the vest and the specific bullet/load/distance it could probably be calculated by one of our resident math gurus. However we don't have that information. Or we could dress a crash test dummy in the vest and fire range of guns at a variety of distances and measure the impact.

We just don't have enough information to answer the question definitively. However, I think there are some clues that are important. Watson's defenders seem to refuse to engage on the point that his vest clearly DID NOT use plates. I would like to hear that specific point addressed as I think it is critical to what he would have felt on impact.

I mean think about it with this little experiment:
The badge was inside the vest.
The badge was "mangled" (I think that is the work I read).
Put a similar badge on your chest, take a ball peen hammer, and using the rounded end, hit the badge hard enough to "mangle it".
Report your findings back to the the group.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. Nobody hit themself in the chest with a hammer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-20-08 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #120
121. As always, I'm thrilled by your input and astounded by your objectivity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-18-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #101
108. 20 grams at 1500 ft/sec dramatically overstates the impact.
A 9mm is 7.5 grams at ~1200 ft/sec at near-contact distance; at 50 yards, it would be considerably less.

A .45 is 15 grams at ~900 ft/sec, maximum (typical will be less), again at near-contact distance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:55 AM
Response to Reply #108
111. Yes it does. That's why I labeled it a Wild Ass Guess.
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 03:56 AM by kristopher
I got the 20g from the approximate weight of a 20 gauge slug. And that is also why I firmed up the numbers with the specifics from a .308 (losthill's seemed to prefer that as the weapon) and a .44 handgun.

According to the charts here http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNBL... the drop off in energy from a handgun at 100 yards is about 25%. Check it for yourself. At 50 yards (and I agree that looks like it is about right for the ship to ship distance) we know it is less, right?

Also, do the full work up! a couple of minutes with a calculator is all it takes. If you want to challenge my assumptions then present your own. Maybe you're right but making half an argument isn't going to demonstrate whether you are or not.

Imagine getting hit in the chest with a sledgehammer.

"Thump?"

I don't think so.

More like

"THUMP!!!!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. Here is my speculation...
The bullet in the photo appears to be an expanded law-enforcement-style jacketed hollowpoint like a police handgun would use; both pistol and revolver bullets can look like that. I believe that round may have undergone a core-jacket separation. Coast Guard handguns of most nations would likely be loaded with that type of bullet, and Japanese Coast Guard are known to have been aboard the whaler (they were the ones throwing the flash-bangs).

To me, it looks very much like some idiot Coast Guardsman aboard the Japanese vessel decided to unload a handgun in the direction of the ship, whether in an attempt to hit someone or in some very Hollywood-esque conception of a "warning shot", and hit the captain (the odds of which would be somewhat low, but not so low as to rule out an unintentional hit). There are some carbines (small rifles) chambered for handgun rounds, but are not the thing one would use for a shot against a moving target; handgun rounds are abysmally slow compared to rifle rounds (~Mach 1 instead of ~Mach 2 to 3) and carry relatively little energy (0.5 kJ or less instead of 3 to 4 kJ for a typical deer rifle/sniper rifle), which would make this an extremely unlikely choice of rounds for an intentional shooting from one ship to another at 150-200 feet.

This whole episode is very strange, but my best guess would be an idiot aboard the whaling vessel shooting at the Steve Irwin with a police-style handgun, perhaps trying to hit someone (and getting rather lucky), or perhaps just trying to hit the ship.

BTW, from a braced position, hitting a human-sized target at 150 feet with a pistol is not particularly hard for a well practiced shooter (especially with a full sized police handgun), IF the target and shooter have no relative motion (probably not the case here). I have hit smaller targets than that at 110 yards with my 9mm Ladysmith, shooting from sandbags. That doesn't mean it was intentional, but it was at minimum aggravated assault and/or reckless endangerment, and quite possibly attempted murder, depending on the motivation of the shooter.

I do not buy the "marine sniper shooting low-velocity patched lead bullets" theory for ballistics, equipment, and circumstantial reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spoonman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #71
88. Evidence?
Watson is the one with the lack of evidence in this situation.

I don't know much about bulletproof vests, or even what type Watson was wearing


It wasn't a type III, you can't cut through a type III plate with a knife.

but did not explain the bruising on Watson's chest that was examined by a Doctor, or how a ruse like that would be carried out under the noses of a film crew from Animal Planet.


I guess they have his every bowel movement on film as well. Come on, you expect us to believe he didn't have time alone where he could repeatedly punch himself in the chest to create a bruise?

It could be a piece of shrapnel from the flash bangs or one of their own stink bombs (whatever those are,) or a bullet that ricocheted off one of the boats


Flash bangs by design do not produce shrapnel, more especially shrapnel shaped like bullet.

Have you ever seen what a ricochet bullet looks like, obviously not, cause it ain't mushroomed!!!! If it had skipped of the metal hull of that ship, it would have been so deformed by the time it hit that vest it would probably looked like a flat leaf, and probably would would not had enough energy to penetrate the vest and crush the "miracle" badge.

Remember the laws of physics - they don't bend because your protecting whales.

you have to account for matching damage to his jacket


What damage to the jacket, I can't see any damage to the jacket in anything I've found.

I have pointed out, and will point out again that people have been shooting each other in these types of encounters for centuries.


And these verified accounts are found where?
I was unaware that animal rights activists, bullet proof vests, silenced firearms and diesel powered ships have been around for "centuries".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 20th 2018, 10:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC