PDA

View Full Version : The Deadliest Warrior and Other Surprising Cable Shows??? Geek Heaven :)



dgiharris
04-09-2009, 11:19 AM
Just finished watching The Deadliest Warrior on Spike T.V.

What they do is arrange a hypothetical match between to historical warriors.

They have a team of martial arts experts, Scientists, medical people, and computer modelers.

They go through the various weapons and strikes and generate real data using the martial arts experts, computer sensors, etc.

Then they take all the data, throw it into some computer simulations to determine the winner

The episode I watched pitted an Apache Warrior against a Roman Gladiator.

Needless to say, I was very impressed. It is counter intuitive and as a ex-scientist and former martial artist I agree with their conclusion.

Out of 1000 simulations the #*$#%&@)@*&# won the 566 of the fights.

Sorry, can't tell you who won :) you have to watch the show.

ANyways, the point of this thread is how impressed I am with these types of shows.

It seems that even though Reality TV has gotten a bad rap, it has helped usher in an age of a different kind of reality T.V.

What do you think? Any other shows out there that are surprising in this regard?

Why has it taken so long for these shows to break through?

Or have they broken through? Are us nerds and geeks the only ones who watch them?

Mel...

Zoombie
04-09-2009, 11:23 AM
Damn that sounds really good!

Hopefully its better than 1001 ways to die.

Ugh.

Hit and miss, Spike T.V. Hit and Miss...

Zoombie
04-10-2009, 02:58 AM
I read an interesting review on this by a man I have a great deal of respect for: The Spoony One (http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/2009/04/09/deadliest-warrior/#comments)



Oh man, this show is hilarious.

I never intended to watch this show, but my brother was recording The Ultimate Fighter, and I was working on SWAT videos, too busy to change the channel. So Deadliest Warrior comes on, and immediately I’m captivated, because the whole thing is narrated by David Wenham, the same guy who played the Storyteller Dilios in the movie 300. That right there is worth the price of admission, because he’s basically narrating the show in the EXACT SAME way, right down to the melodramatic, throaty tone of voice, dripping with foreboding and menace as he describes everything in grandiose prose, like “the stealthy Apache, fearless and swift.” It takes everything you’ve got not to do your own running commentary in the same voice: “And we brave few Spartans stood vigil at the gates of Hell! We 300 pitted against legions of brutal Apache warriors! And lo, did King Leonidas, King of Sparta, stand fearless, spear and shield in hand.”

Hey, if I were David Wenham I’d just call people up and do that. “We Spartans desire a pizza, rich in sauce and deep of crust. Showered in decadent sausage and mushrooms. Their honor rode upon a simple pledge, much revered in Sparta: pizza within 30 minutes, else be cast out as a filthy, lowly wretch…”

Anyway, the whole show is based in some bizarre Chris Sims-ian premise that basically sounds like the brainchild of two stoners after a rousing session of SoulCaliber. “What if, like, a gladiator fought an Apache?”

And that’s the entire show. Seriously. It’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard, sort of like the Anachronism collectible card game brought to life.

But anyway, they go balls-deep into the ludicrous concept, bringing in “experts” in the respective weapons and fighting styles, and letting them argue about whose cock is bigger. In this case, they brought a Native American knife specialist who trains U.S. special forces and some chunkhead who apparently knows a lot about gladiatorial fighting. The whole thing is overseen by a scientist who provides them with ample analogues for the human body to stab and brutalize, lots of skeletal remains encased in ballistics gelatin, lots of martial arts practice dummies. But despite all of these experts, none of them seem able to point out that, geographical impossibilities notwithstanding, Roman gladiators were first and foremost showmen who rarely fought to the death. Their weapons were made primarily for wounding and effect, their armor specifically fashioned for dramatic effect, most of the time with the chest and arms exposed to showcase bloody injuries. Only criminals were usually left to die in the arena.

But whatever. The bulk of the show is showcasing the various common weapons and doing some bullshit evaluation of which ones are “better,” depending on range, utility, and overall deadliness. What it all boils down to is, some big guy picks up the sword, hits a side of beef, and the doctor looks over the damage, scratches his chin and says “Yup, that could kill you!” Well no shit, Doc. It’s a good thing you’re here, to tell me that a bow and arrow could kill you.

The scientist also has a simulator. Ostensibly, he’s collecting a ton of data that he feeds into his computer (full of SCIENCE) that will eventually tell us who was more badass. Never mind that both sides had completely different fighting styles– the Apache with stealth, ambush, hit-and-run tactics, and gladiators in A FUCKING ARENA. We couldn’t have just pitted the Apaches against Roman legions?

I think the funniest part was how dismissive the gladiator side was of the Apache guys. They were totally in love with the gladiator’s sica, trident and net, and scissor weapons, and were wholly unimpressed with the Apache’s comparatively smaller weapons like the knife, war club, and tomahawk. Never mind that the special forces guy they brought in could kill you about twelve times in three seconds with that knife alone, especially with you wearing a gladiator’s helmet that obscures all but 40% of your vision and no armor over your chest or legs. The weapon they brought in to counter the tomahawk was the cestus (a spiked gauntlet), even going so far as to bring Chuck Liddell in to demonstrate how hard he could punch with it. That’s neat. You go ahead and punch the guy while he shanks you in the heart with one hand and splits your crown with a tomahawk in the other hand.

Even the Apache guy says “I don’t know why we’re talking about a fair fight, because the Apache never fought fair.”

The best part is actually the ending where they stage a surprisingly well-choreographed battle between the two actors dressed in warrior garb– in this case, an Apache and a gladiator wandering around the American forests. It’s ridiculous, of course, but it’s still a good fight. It’s just too bad that this show isn’t educational. In fact, most of the time it’s downright WRONG. Early in the show, the supposed gladiator expert gets on the camera and says “the gladiator lived for only one thing: to kill!” Most of the time, I think the gladiator lived either to make money or to win his own freedom. We learn the names of the weapons and armor, but not their significance or utility. Instead of being focused on choosing a winner, perhaps it would be more interesting to simply tell us what scenarios favor each side, and what weapons each side would choose.

I’m just waiting for the inevitable Pirate Vs. Ninja episode.

shawkins
04-10-2009, 03:25 AM
Just finished watching The Deadliest Warrior on Spike T.V.

What they do is arrange a hypothetical match between to historical warriors.

They have a team of martial arts experts, Scientists, medical people, and computer modelers.

Ah kewl. I never even heard of this. Spike TV, you say? <scuttles off to fiddle with DVR>


It seems that even though Reality TV has gotten a bad rap, it has helped usher in an age of a different kind of reality T.V.

What do you think? Any other shows out there that are surprising in this regard?

Why has it taken so long for these shows to break through?



One time I was in London and I saw a game show where they had random folks game big historical battles on a huge computer simulation. One of the contestants was this blue haired grandmother type going on about how Cornwallis didn't take adequate advantage of the local geography during the Battle of Whatever and if she'd been in charge she would have shown those uppity colonials a thing or two.

Every now and then you hear the Brits referred to as a "warrior race." I never quite got it until then, but I'm convinced.

dgiharris
04-10-2009, 04:04 AM
I read an interesting review on this by a man I have a great deal of respect for: The Spoony One (http://www.spoonyexperiment.com/2009/04/09/deadliest-warrior/#comments)


Bah, I don't like his review :(

dgiharris
04-12-2009, 05:35 AM
OK guys

Deadliest Warrior is having another show On Tuesday, 8pm

THe show will detail the Samurai vs the Viking

Watch it and see if it is not a cool show.

Keeping in mind that it is the first season :)

Anyways, I like the show, judge for yourselves and report back here after you watch it :)

Its on Spike TV

Mel...

Zoombie
04-12-2009, 06:19 AM
Bah, I don't like his review :(


The Spoony One is wise and wrathful. Beware his NerdRage and FlameBolts, for he will air juggle your ass!


...I liked the show too, despite its stupidity.

Viking versus Samurai, eh?

That might have actually happened, and could have been their inspiration for Oni (Tall, redheaded, with horns on their heads)

dgiharris
04-17-2009, 12:00 AM
So, the epic Battle between the Samurai and Viking took place last night.

what I will say is that the results were very surprising.

522 wins to 488 wins which is almost a coin flip.

But for those of you who want to watch it, I won't spoil it.

For those of you interested in the winner, click the link below :)

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/duchamp/410/main.html

Next Week.

Ninja vs. Spartan.

Mel...

Zoombie
04-17-2009, 01:53 AM
Still stupid.

Still fun.

dgiharris
04-22-2009, 10:07 AM
O.k.

so last night's geek porn featured the Ninja vs. the Spartan.

Who would win?

Well, the winner is in the below link. my first guess was wrong, but after the show i've changed my mind and agree.

It was a good fight. Next week is a Pirate vs. a Knight.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1176470/

Mel...

jodiodi
04-22-2009, 09:04 PM
My husband and I love this show. We try to watch it whenever it's on. My husband will watch anything involving guys fighting.

It's interesting.

jennontheisland
04-22-2009, 09:09 PM
Roomie just got one of those tv recorder thingies. Set to go!

Zoombie
04-23-2009, 12:06 AM
Its still stupid.

HOWEVER!

Do you know who's NOT stupid!?

Spike T.V

Cause they're putting their shows online: http://www.spike.com/full-episode/31578

T.V should move fully onto the internet, ya know...

Cranky
04-23-2009, 12:19 AM
We've watched every episode so far, even though each one has left my husband foaming at the mouth with rage at the outcomes. He's disagreed with every one of them, especially the one with the Apache and the ninja. Okay, not the outcome on the Apache warrior one, but he thought the Apaches were getting seriously underestimated, and I tended to agree.

I have to admit, I find some of the testing pretty ludicrous, and doesn't take into account tactics, focusing instead on the lethality of the various weapons out of that context. It's kind of irritating.

And yet, we keep watching.

eLfwriter
04-23-2009, 12:19 AM
Deadliest Warrior passed the realm of stupid and landed firmly in the dukedom of awesomeness. Who honestly hasn't argued over who would win in a grudgematch to the death -- so-and-so or who-what-who?

My favorite matches to argue about have always been -- Spiderman vs Batman, Jason the Red Power Ranger vs Leonardo, the Ninja Turtule, and Frankenstien vs Zombie.

This show's just plain fun. The results do bug me, since you're right, Cranky, they don't take tactic into account, but the show itself is good fodder for a good natured argument with whoever's sitting next to you.



I’m just waiting for the inevitable Pirate Vs. Ninja episode.

Too bad ... pirate vs knight, ninja vs spartan.





My question is, are they eventually going to take all the "winners" and square them off until they have the Ultimate Deadliest Warrior? Or is that Season Two?

Cranky
04-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Deadliest Warrior passed the realm of stupid and landed firmly in the dukedom of awesomeness. Who honestly hasn't argued over who would win in a grudgematch to the death -- so-and-so or who-what-who?



Cavemen versus astronauts!

eLfwriter
04-23-2009, 12:23 AM
Cavemen versus astronauts!

Omg, YES! I'd so watch that one.




ETA ... wouldn't it be cool if the cavemen overthrew the astronauts, and sacrificed them to a sabretoothed tiger or something?

jodiodi
04-23-2009, 02:21 AM
I remember a show from my infancy about two astronauts who ended up in cave times. All I remember from the theme song:

It's about time
It's about space
It's about two men in the strangest place.

dgiharris
04-29-2009, 07:52 PM
O.K. boys and girls.

Last night, the Pirate faced off against a medieval knight.

It was o.k., not as cool as the ninja versus Spartan.

The winner is listed below.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0477457/

Next week looks cool.

They have the Italian Mofia vs. The Japanese Yakuza

Mel...

shawkins
04-30-2009, 01:07 AM
Crap, I keep forgetting this is on. Is it available online anywhere?

p.s. - V for Vendetta vs. Pinhead

Manix
04-30-2009, 01:19 AM
This sounds A-to-the-W-E, Awesome! I'll have to check it out.

Manix--Unrepentant Geek

Zoombie
04-30-2009, 11:46 AM
Pirate wins, no question.

Its called a GUN, people!

dgiharris
04-30-2009, 12:55 PM
Pirate wins, no question.

Its called a GUN, people!

Not so fast,

That 'gun' was a musket i.e. only one shot, not always reliable, the aim is dog shit and you might want to think about how effective a musket is against iron plates and armor. Also, despite the movies, a single gun shot usually doesn't kill.


Ahhh... Not so simple now.

And Shawkins, its on Tuesday nights but they show reruns throughout the week on Spike TV.

I'm curious to see how their going to do the Mofia vs. Yakuza analysis.

What is cool though is they go into a brief history of each opponent, so you learn something. For instance, I learned the secret behind the Ninja 'disappearing' act. Which makes a LOT of sense and explains how the mythos developed.

Mel..

Zoombie
04-30-2009, 11:27 PM
But, as we know, Pirates never have just one gun...Blackboard had at least 10 pistols on him while he did battle.

The knight has a chance, but not enough of a chance to make his armor and years of training worth the damn money and time it would cost to train them.

To train 150 guys with muskets is cheap, you just train them to reload. Aiming is irrelevant with massed musket fire.

To train and equip guys with plate mail and swords and crossbows and make them actually worth the time and effort...that costs a lot more.

jodiodi
05-06-2009, 06:59 AM
You know I'm rooting for the Hot Asian Gang.

bettielee
05-06-2009, 07:00 AM
The Ninja/Spartan show ROCKED! It rocked HARD!

dgiharris
05-06-2009, 01:17 PM
O.k. Boys and Girls,

The Deadliest Warrior switched gears and instead of going mono y mono they set one group against the others.

Yesterday, the Italian Mofia of the 1920s faced off against the Japanese Yakuzas from the 1940s.

The fight was close, 58% to 42%.

At first I disagreed, but the more I think about it, the more I'm starting to agree based on a couple of key reasons they gave in the show. The fight at the end wasn't as good as i'd like, it was o.k.. anyways, the winner is in the link below (don't want to spoil it for those who are still planning on seeing it. (you can see it on Spike TV website)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/

Next week should be good. They have the US special forces going up against the USSR special forces. mono y mono.

that should be good.

Mel...

Sheryl Nantus
05-06-2009, 04:16 PM
biggest problem I had with last night's ep was watching the men trashtalk.

it's one thing to brag about your ancestors, but when those same ancestors used to threaten, terrorize and intimidate civilians I sure as heck wouldn't be proud of that.

:(

thugs.

Zoombie
06-06-2009, 09:48 AM
Yeah...um...did anyone see the latest episode?

I have to say: WHAT

THE

FUCK

WERE

YOU

THINKING!?!?!?!?!?

The Irish Republican Army versus the Taliban? Two groups of people who are not just evil but also, ya know, STILL AROUND.

Knights and Pirates were both a bunch of douche bags, and the Spetznas(SP) surely did a lot of crap...but the Knight ceased to exist CENTURIES AGO! The Spetznas disbanded (as far as I know) after the end of the Soviet Union.

But the Taliban are killing people! Civilians, American soldiers! And though the IRA issued a statement saying they were abandoning violence, there's still the splinter faction, the "real" IRA, who are still firebombing places and being, well, douchebags to the Nth degree.

NO!

There's not enough emotional distance for me to watch and enjoy the IRA V Taliban episode. The Green Berets and the Spetznas were pushing it, imo.

Pleeeeeeeeease go backwards in time.

Or...start pitting fictional warriors against one another.

Who will win, an Adeptus Astartest, a genetically engineered superhuman warrior, armed with a pistolized semi-automatic rocket propelled armor piercing mass reactive grenade launcher and an unholy amalgamation of chainsaw and sword (chainsword!). Or the dreaded Sith Warrior, trained in the Dark side of the Force, wielding lightsabers and multiple force powers.


...

Dude, that would be AWESOME.

Lhun
06-06-2009, 10:28 PM
Intrigued by this thread i checked out the show. And i have to say it's the biggest amount of bullshit i've seen since BBC fight science. The tests they set up are totally ridiculous, if they ever arrive at a correct conclusion it's only by accident.

Though if you like that show, you should probably check out BBC fight science. Same pseudoscientific bullshit, but also lots of dramatic narration and moves in slow-mo.

Zoombie
06-06-2009, 10:42 PM
It is bullshit. We all know its bullshit.

Its also hillarious.

Lhun
06-06-2009, 11:15 PM
Yes well, it's hilarious because it is bullshit.

Zoombie
06-06-2009, 11:17 PM
That's why I think they should just drop the pretense and just see who would win

Protoss Zealot

Versus

A T-800

Cranky
06-06-2009, 11:22 PM
Yeah, I had to stop watching because I got irritated at the testing. It's not consistent, they don't use the same test (or similiar enough for my taste) for each set of weapons. I could dig letting them do something different for the "special weapons" section, but when it's mid-range versus mid-range? USE THE SAME GODDARN TEST! Otherwise the results are bogus.

Course,the whole thing is bogus, I know, but still. A little attempt at plausibility would be nice, is all I'm saying. And the Taliban vs. IRA was just stupid with a capital S.

I'm gonna stick with watching Fourth and Long and Ultimate Fighter, thanks.

*flounces*

Zoombie
06-06-2009, 11:25 PM
<waves> Bye Cranky!

Lhun
06-07-2009, 12:34 AM
That's why I think they should just drop the pretense and just see who would win

Protoss Zealot

Versus

A T-800Good idea. And while they're using the scientifically scientific computer simulation (with added science!) to figure out those, i'm totally voting for putting those martial arts experts into some padding and letting them have a real match to see who's better.
I mean, there's guys who actually do that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsbRRVdBuZE&feature=channel_page and they've got the stones to do it without stuntmen, movie tricks or insurance agents. (though maybe to insurance agents)

/addendum: I say the T-800 totally shoots the Zealot in the face and wins. In the face! Like Chuck Norris, only awesomer.
Yeah! Let's have Chuck wear a Zealot costume and duke it out with Ahnuld.

Zoombie
06-07-2009, 12:40 AM
But the Zealot has sheilds!

Lhun
06-07-2009, 01:11 AM
The mighty power of the guvernator will cause them to black out!

Zoombie
06-07-2009, 02:16 AM
Obviously we'll have to do "tests"

...and by test, I mean play Starcraft for hours.

S.C. Denton
06-08-2009, 08:39 PM
O.k.

so last night's geek porn featured the Ninja vs. the Spartan


I've been watching this show whenever I can, and I also usually disagree with the results. Some of the things just don't make sense. They are really pitting the weapons against each other and not taking into the slightest account the fighting approach of the individual warrior.

Like the Ninja representative (I guess they couldn't dig up a better one because a real Ninja would never display himself or the secrets of his craft so readily on television) said a Ninja would never face a Spartan straight up in battle. He'd wait 'till the guy was asleep and attack stealthily under the cover of night. Probably no one would ever hear him. It's highly unlikely that today's Ninja only uses those dated weapons. I know you are probably thinking I'm off my rocker, but I guarantee that there are still some stealthy contract killers out there who mostly adhere to the old code.

At any rate they certainly wouldn't fight the heads up battles that the Spartan would've. And despite the fact that I don't care much for their methods of determining the results, I still like the show.


People tend to think that because guns are so prevalent that a sword or it's like is a rediculous notion, but if you can't get to it fast enough it wouldn't matter if you had a rocket launcher.

Lhun
06-08-2009, 11:34 PM
I've been watching this show whenever I can, and I also usually disagree with the results. Some of the things just don't make sense. They are really pitting the weapons against each other and not taking into the slightest account the fighting approach of the individual warrior.I know what you mean. What is silliest about that is that they appear to pair up the weapons and then just count the results in the end. Like the club vs. shield thing in the Viking vs. Samurai episode. What was supposed to happen there? The Viking parries with the shield until the other guy dies of exhaustion? For a real test, most of the fighters would stick to their favored weapon, only switching if necessary.
It was still funny though. But i'd have loved to see some better actors in the Viking vs. Samurai thing. Y'know, a viking that's actually half a meter bigger than the japanese guy.

Like the Ninja representative (I guess they couldn't dig up a better one because a real Ninja would never display himself or the secrets of his craft so readily on television) said a Ninja would never face a Spartan straight up in battle.Well it was an unfair comparison. Most of all, because according to our historical knowledge, the Spartans actually existed.

People tend to think that because guns are so prevalent that a sword or it's like is a rediculous notion, but if you can't get to it fast enough it wouldn't matter if you had a rocket launcher.Drawing a handgun is not slower than drawing a sword. Depends on the specific gund and sword of course, there are variations, but they're in the same ballpark.

S.C. Denton
06-11-2009, 01:05 AM
Well it was an unfair comparison. Most of all, because according to our historical knowledge, the Spartans actually existed.


Whether you believe Ninja's exist today or not is one thing, but they have definitely been proven the real deal. At any rate they certainly weren't fairy tales the Japanese culture made up to scare us Westerners. Lol.

There isn't any one date in time when the Ninjutsu was founded but it is believed that the catalyst was when Chinese military men fled collapsing T'ang China around 900A.D.and sought sanctuary on Japan's islands, that they began to teach and mesh their methods with the beliefs and warfare of the islanders.

Ninja's were mainly commoners. These people didn't have Samurai status... so being strictly honor bound never interferred with their missions. Whereas a Samurai had much more to consider about how he conducted warfare. But such is a hindrance when your main goal is to do battle with another person.

Lhun
06-13-2009, 10:47 PM
Whether you believe Ninja's exist today or not is one thing, but they have definitely been proven the real deal.Proven? Really proven? I'd love to see that prove.

At any rate they certainly weren't fairy tales the Japanese culture made up to scare us Westerners. Lol.No, generally "us Westerners" are perfectly capable of making up fairy tales on our own.

Ninja's were mainly commoners. These people didn't have Samurai status... so being strictly honor bound never interferred with their missions.Yeah, i mean, killing people doesn't really interfere with their mission after all.
If you mean ninjas as in "Ancient Japanes Spies", sure, they existed. Every culture has some of their own. If you think of ninjas as represented in most of modern pop culture, they're total bullshit.

Whereas a Samurai had much more to consider about how he conducted warfare. But such is a hindrance when your main goal is to do battle with another person.I hate to be the one to tell you that, but most of the "code of the samurai" stuff is bullshit as well. The mystification of the samurai caste happened at a time when they'd become largely irrelevant as a military force. Wich obviously rocked the foundations of their aristocratic society.

Zoombie
06-14-2009, 12:23 AM
Well, yeah, Ninjas existed.

They were also mostly assasins and spies, with a perchance for the theatrical.

Heck, if you're fighting someone and they think you're capable of vanishing in thin air, running across water, and other fantastic stunts, they're prolly going to be easier to beat...

Lady Cat
06-14-2009, 12:26 AM
I love this show! I think my favorite episode so far was the Shaolin Monk vs. the Maori Warrior.

For anyone who's interested, you can watch the full episodes here: http://www.spike.com/show/31082?tabId=31138&fxn=getTabMembers

dgiharris
06-14-2009, 12:49 AM
...If you mean ninjas as in "Ancient Japanes Spies", sure, they existed. Every culture has some of their own. If you think of ninjas as represented in most of modern pop culture, they're total bullshit.
I hate to be the one to tell you that, but most of the "code of the samurai" stuff is bullshit as well. The mystification of the samurai caste happened at a time when they'd become largely irrelevant as a military force. Wich obviously rocked the foundations of their aristocratic society...

No idea where your perspective is coming from.

In regards to the art of Ninjitsu, it existed as evident by not only word of mouth passed on through generations, but also written history, along with their martial art.

The myth's associated with them (vanishing in thin air) is rooted in fact. One of the ninja's weapons was to take grounded glass and red pepper and put it into a hollowed out egg. They would then take the egg, crush it in their hands and throw it at your eyes, blinding you while they got away.

Anyways, all of this is backed up by documents and historical records.

Along with the code of the Samurai--Bushido. Again, a well documented historical record.

Sorry, your misguided opinions doesn't outweigh historical records. Sure, some things may have been mystified, but that doesn't invalidate the foundation of facts that support both arts.


...People tend to think that because guns are so prevalent that a sword or it's like is a rediculous notion, but if you can't get to it fast enough it wouldn't matter if you had a rocket launcher.

Sorry, even though I'm a former martial artist, I have to disagree here. The gun is a superior weapon, a gun is to the sword as a tiger is to a house cat. There is no comparison. I've trained with both and know what i'm talking about.

Now in terms of actual asassins and asassinations. The prefered method is the sniper rifle. Reason being, killing someone is relatively easy, killing them and GETTING AWAY with it is relatively hard. In matters of life and death distance is your friend. Problem with the sword is you have to be relatively close to the person to use it.

I do love the sword and martial combat, but ever since the invention of the gun, the other two are rightfully in second and third place

Mel...

S.C. Denton
06-14-2009, 02:31 AM
The firing of a gun should always be the last line of defense; since the Ninja's goal was to be neither seen or heard, but rather mythed and rumored to have been there, they would probably prefer the mostly quiet methods of dispatching foes.

A shot fired... even one from a silenced weapon leaves a sound in it's wake, but the Ninja swordmaster could've got it done with true near silence. And then the silence would draw out like a blade and said Ninja would slide icily down it's edge out under the cover of a Lotus Mooned Darkness;)

dgiharris
06-14-2009, 05:05 AM
A shot fired... even one from a silenced weapon leaves a sound in it's wake, but the Ninja swordmaster could've got it done with true near silence. And then the silence would draw out like a blade and said Ninja would slide icily down it's edge out under the cover of a Lotus Mooned Darkness;)

Bolding mine.

Dude, you've been watching too much tv and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A long range sniper rifle with a silencer makes zero noise. You'd have no idea where the bullet came from. The 'sound wake' you are talking about is complete fiction and you've been watching way too much matrix.

In fact, even WITHOUT a silencer, a sniper (shooting from over 200 yds) is safe. It takes 'two' shots to orient where the shot came from. Meaning, if you are a sniper and shoot 'once' from a well hidden location, people will not be able to pin you down.

This goes triply so if you shot from a location rife with possible hidding places like a building with other buildings next to it.

Mel...

Zoombie
06-14-2009, 11:34 AM
Mel, what do you think of the IRA V Taliban episode?

Is that too much? Or am I just whimpy?

S.C. Denton
06-16-2009, 02:12 AM
Bolding mine.

Dude, you've been watching too much tv and have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A long range sniper rifle with a silencer makes zero noise. You'd have no idea where the bullet came from. The 'sound wake' you are talking about is complete fiction and you've been watching way too much matrix.

In fact, even WITHOUT a silencer, a sniper (shooting from over 200 yds) is safe. It takes 'two' shots to orient where the shot came from. Meaning, if you are a sniper and shoot 'once' from a well hidden location, people will not be able to pin you down.

This goes triply so if you shot from a location rife with possible hidding places like a building with other buildings next to it.

Mel...

There is no rifle/pistol in existence capable of making zero noise. A silencer can make that noise undetectable to the intended victim, and perhaps --almost even--to the shooter, but it still makes a sound. Even something traveling fast enough to break the sound barrier leaves a sound (quite literally) in the wake of it's path.


What we're really talking about is something, whatever it is, moving from a state of potential to kinetic energy, and I don't see that happening without it making a sound, even if it's not detectable by the human ear, it's still there.

I agree that a sniper with or without a silencer can take someone out without the victim ever even contemplating the notion of their own death, but when they fire their rifle it still makes a sound. It is the dissipation of that sound that's the silencer's job. And while it does it magnificently, what it doesn't do is: uncreate the sound. It merely makes it so low as to be negligable.

Zoombie
06-16-2009, 02:15 AM
Negligible sound is the same as no sound, from a practical standpoint.

S.C. Denton
06-16-2009, 02:24 AM
You're right about that. Dead is dead. Whatever the method... in the end... if it came swiftly and the victim never saw it comin' then the killer not only succeeded but lived to fight another day.

Lhun
06-17-2009, 04:02 AM
No idea where your perspective is coming from.Research. Try it.

In regards to the art of Ninjitsu, it existed as evident by not only word of mouth passed on through generations, but also written history, along with their martial art.Riiiight. And you know, the existence of Burgundy in the time the Nibelunglied is set proves that Siegfried actually killed a dragon. And because there probably was a King Arthur (and a coconut), the Holy Grail is real. And because there were Samurai, a Katana can cut a tank. No really! I saw it on the internet!

The myth's associated with them (vanishing in thin air) is rooted in fact. One of the ninja's weapons was to take grounded glass and red pepper and put it into a hollowed out egg. They would then take the egg, crush it in their hands and throw it at your eyes, blinding you while they got away.That has to be the most awesome weapon since monkey invented flinging poo.

Anyways, all of this is backed up by documents and historical records.Yes, you're right. But none of this has anything to do with the way Ninja are depicted in modern pop culture. As i said, the Japanese had their spies, Ninjas, just like every other culture had their spies and special agents. But the image of Ninjas as the omgwtfawesome assassins that sneaked around and flipped out and killed people has about as much relation to the truth as James Bond is an accurate depiction of British Military Intelligence Officers during the cold war.
The preferred assassination method in Japan was pretty much the same as everywhere else in the world. Don't fuck around with blowguns and black pyjamas but send a few capable swordsmen to ambush and kill the target in a back alley. It's called the KISS principle.

Along with the code of the Samurai--Bushido. Again, a well documented historical record.Yes. And gained ever so much importance after the Samurai lost theirs. During the time when the Samurai were the actual fighting force in Japan, that code was a lot looser. Except for the parts that establish the feudalism, which isn't very surprising.

Sorry, your misguided opinions doesn't outweigh historical records. Sure, some things may have been mystified, but that doesn't invalidate the foundation of facts that support both arts.Sorry, but rampant fanboyism is not a historical record.

Now in terms of actual asassins and asassinations. The prefered method is the sniper rifle. Reason being, killing someone is relatively easy, killing them and GETTING AWAY with it is relatively hard. In matters of life and death distance is your friend. Problem with the sword is you have to be relatively close to the person to use it.No it's not. Well, in Kill Bill maybe, which also is not a historical record. The methods far more common are car bombs, faked muggings-gone-wrong, poison (lately mostly radioactive substances). All these have the advantage of getting safely out of the way before anyone actually notices something happened. The people who don't care about that tend to favour drive-by shootings a lot more than sniper rifles. Apart from the occasional lunatic going on a rampage, there are very few sniper-related deaths happening, and it's not as if that cause of death is easily mistaken for something else. Which BTW implies that killing someone and making it look like natural cause or an accident would be the preferred method of a smart assassin, but it's pretty much impossible by definition to find out how often that happens. It at least doesn't seem to be attempted unsuccessfully too often.

iforgot120
06-18-2009, 10:14 PM
Lhun, he meant he doesn't understand where your perspective of his ideas come from and I agree; you misunderstood his original post.

Anyways, this show is more eye candy than anything else. It's very enjoyable to watch to say the least.

S.C. Denton
06-18-2009, 10:24 PM
When speaking of King Author, the Holy Grail, and even of Ninjas all these things have been found to have truths in their origins, by brains much more scientific minded than you or I, and I for one believe them. The proof lies in historical texts still in existence today.

Just because their actuality may have little resemblence to what is popularly believed does not make them untrue.

Lhun
06-21-2009, 01:34 AM
When speaking of King Author, the Holy Grail, and even of Ninjas all these things have been found to have truths in their origins, by brains much more scientific minded than you or I, and I for one believe them. The proof lies in historical texts still in existence today.As i said before, i'm really interested in what texts you are referring to. What text you base that statement on for example:

It's highly unlikely that today's Ninja only uses those dated weapons. I know you are probably thinking I'm off my rocker, but I guarantee that there are still some stealthy contract killers out there who mostly adhere to the old code.

S.C. Denton
06-21-2009, 11:33 AM
We are talking about a meanlingless (but fun) thread. That and nothing more. If i'm to spend my time doing extensive research on these subjects then I may as well forgoe this thread altogether and write a book on the subject. If you're so interested in disproving these as non-facts then why don't you do the research to disprove them. And point me in the right direction of what are the truth as facts as you know them to be.

Even if we both were to do the same we'd only be accepting the words of others as the Gospel. So in the end you/I have to come to our own decisions on what is or isn't real, based on what THEY have told us.

Whereas the real truths should be decided for oneselve. Not from what others speculate. As to the aforementioned historical records, unfortuantely I don't carry them around in my wallet so that in just such a case I'm able to pull them out and demonstrate so massive trivia of useless knowlede. That is unless of course you were writing a book on just one of these subjects.

dgiharris
06-21-2009, 01:33 PM
o.k. Lhun,

when arguing, people go in endless circles becuase they don't listen to what the other person is saying. So in an attempt to prevent the endless dance, let me see if I can sum up your argument.

You are arguing several points.

#1) Ninjas and Ninjitsu and the modern image of Ninjas has been blown out of proportion by hollywood.

My answer to this point. Duh. But our argument will be to what extent.

#2) You seem to be arguing that the art of Ninjitsu and Ninjas really did not exist, no where near the extent as our modern beliefs, that Ninjas were just Japanese version of Normal assassins.

My Answer to this point. No idea what you are smoking. Japanese records are very comprehensive of this fact and your "Show me the records" argument is really childish in this regards as I will prove later.

#3) You seem to be arguing that modern day assasinations are better served by close quarter contact and combat in the form of swords, poison, other methods.

My answer to this point. You sound like someone who does not know what they are talking about.

Lets use some logical deduction. Assassinations usually involve high value targets. High value targets are surrounded by guards and an inner circle of people who are screened and watched constantly. In this situation, how does an 'assassin' get close enough to a target to kill them with your close quarter tactics and then be able to escape?

The Sniper rifle is the ideal weapon of choice for modern day assassins. It causes the least amount of collateral damage and allows the assassin to escape.

Bombs are another option, but they are trickier because you need to know when and where a target is going to be, have access to the area, hope no one sees the bomb in the interim, have a means obtain, transport, plant, and detonate the bomb, and the target has to be in the immediate vicinity of the bomb. The destructive power of a bomb is dependant on a 1/r^2 force principle which can work in favor of the mark.


The rest of your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, strawmen, and the "show me the records" counters to valid points we are making.


In respones to my query about where you came up with your ideas you answered

Research. Try it.

Well, o.k. Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjutsu). In this listing there are numerous references to other data, records, books etc. And if you know anything about google, a 2 second search will confirm everything i've said. But feel free to resort to your normal mental contortion and crack smoking justifications to ignore these facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjutsu


In response to my explaining that all myths are rooted in fact and discussing how Ninjas used crush glass mixed with red pepper and would throw it into the eyes of their victims, your intelligent well thought out response was


That has to be the most awesome weapon since monkey invented flinging poo.

Wow, great counter showing your intellect and argumentative abilities. I'm at a lost to even respond to such wit.

And oh, by the way, this tactic is good enough for most of the world's Police force as a nonlethal weapon. Guess they aren't smart enough to use your Monkey poo.


The preferred assassination method in Japan was pretty much the same as everywhere else in the world. Don't fuck around with blowguns and black pyjamas but send a few capable swordsmen to ambush and kill the target in a back alley. It's called the KISS principle.


hmmm... I think you are getting confused. Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of fights and armed engagements where you send a few swords to handle your business.

I know it is painful to think beyond step 1, but lets try walking you down a logical path.

The higher value a target, (usually) the more secure that target is, and the less effective direct measures against said target will be. How do you kill the leader of the biggest army in your region? Can you afford to hire that many swords?

Thus, you turn to an assassin who has developed a means of indirect attack against a high value target. The Ninja is perhaps the world's best in this regard as they developed an entire martial art around the concept of assassination.

Incidentally, US and Israel Special forces employ tactics that have their roots in Native American tactics, Ninjitsu, as well as other martial arts. That should tell you something.

The principles are the same, the only thing that has changed is the application of those principles via technology.


No it's not. Well, in Kill Bill maybe, which also is not a historical record. The methods far more common are car bombs, faked muggings-gone-wrong, poison (lately mostly radioactive substances). All these have the advantage of getting safely out of the way before anyone actually notices something happened. The people who don't care about that tend to favour drive-by shootings a lot more than sniper rifles. Apart from the occasional lunatic going on a rampage, there are very few sniper-related deaths happening, and it's not as if that cause of death is easily mistaken for something else. Which BTW implies that killing someone and making it look like natural cause or an accident would be the preferred method of a smart assassin, but it's pretty much impossible by definition to find out how often that happens. It at least doesn't seem to be attempted unsuccessfully too often.

I think we are having a problem with semantics. There is a difference between a killing and an assassination. The semantic "assassination" implies a high value target.

Mel....

Lhun
06-21-2009, 08:37 PM
We are talking about a meanlingless (but fun) thread. That and nothing more. If i'm to spend my time doing extensive research on these subjects then I may as well forgoe this thread altogether and write a book on the subject. If you're so interested in disproving these as non-facts then why don't you do the research to disprove them. And point me in the right direction of what are the truth as facts as you know them to be.Well you know, when someone uses phrases like "I guarantee" and mentions believing the experts, i just kind of, yknow, assume they already did some research and can point out where they did, or tell which experts those are, which are to be believed.

Lhun
06-21-2009, 09:03 PM
when arguing, people go in endless circles becuase they don't listen to what the other person is saying. So in an attempt to prevent the endless dance, let me see if I can sum up your argument.Fair idea.

#1) Ninjas and Ninjitsu and the modern image of Ninjas has been blown out of proportion by hollywood.
My answer to this point. Duh. But our argument will be to what extent.Yep.

#2) You seem to be arguing that the art of Ninjitsu and Ninjas really did not exist, no where near the extent as our modern beliefs, that Ninjas were just Japanese version of Normal assassins.

My Answer to this point. No idea what you are smoking. Japanese records are very comprehensive of this fact and your "Show me the records" argument is really childish in this regards as I will prove later.Nothing really, i hate smoke. Which is why i don't share either.
Though you pretty much correctly got my point. Additionally for clarification though, i'd like to know what you consider those "normal assassins" the likes of which Ninjas were not.
For additional clarification, my argument is even that Ninjas were not only not the uber deadly assassins as which they're being portraied, but also that their actual work was mainly, and mostly, intelligence gathering, and not assassinations.
"Show me the records" is not an argument, it's a request. If someone invokes historical records, as you did, it's quite obvious others might actually want to read them for themselves.

#3) You seem to be arguing that modern day assasinations are better served by close quarter contact and combat in the form of swords, poison, other methods.Swords? I have no idea how you could get that idea.

My answer to this point. You sound like someone who does not know what they are talking about.
Lets use some logical deduction. Assassinations usually involve high value targets. High value targets are surrounded by guards and an inner circle of people who are screened and watched constantly. In this situation, how does an 'assassin' get close enough to a target to kill them with your close quarter tactics and then be able to escape?
Well back atcha buddy. Apparently you have a very nice concept of how to carry out assassination. Me, i don't really have an idea what weapon would serve an assassin best. I'm not one. I am however a person who quite often, for various reason connected to stuff i do, check up on criminal statistics most police departments in democratic nations are quite happy to provide, even online. And i notice a distinctive lack of sniper rifles as causes of deaths. Especially among high-profile victims. But who knows, maybe all those sniping hitmen work in china and africa.

The Sniper rifle is the ideal weapon of choice for modern day assassins. It causes the least amount of collateral damage and allows the assassin to escape.All those hitmen-ninja who secretely assassinate politicians all the time seem to think differently.

The rest of your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, strawmen, and the "show me the records" counters to valid points we are making.It's not a "counter". Well, not unless you actually have no records. It's a request, because if there are such records i'd like to see them, and then i can decide wether to be convinced by them or wether to "counter" why they're not convincing.

In respones to my query about where you came up with your ideas you answered<>Yes, i haven't done any reasearch on Ninjas in quite a while, and i only remember what conclusions i reached. I won't claim to have hard historical data or impressive expert's opinion if i can't point them out because i don't remember anymore where i found them.

Well, o.k. Here you go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjutsu). In this listing there are numerous references to other data, records, books etc. And if you know anything about google, a 2 second search will confirm everything i've said. But feel free to resort to your normal mental contortion and crack smoking justifications to ignore these facts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NinjutsuA wiki article on ninjutsu is what your "historical facts" amount to? Seriously?

<>Wow, great counter showing your intellect and argumentative abilities. I'm at a lost to even respond to such wit.See, that's what happens to me when someone seriously argues that throwing powder is some kind super-effective secret weapon that had samurais guarding their lieges baffled for centuries.

And oh, by the way, this tactic is good enough for most of the world's Police force as a nonlethal weapon. Guess they aren't smart enough to use your Monkey poo.Yah, throwing ground glass and pepper is of course absolutely as effective as tear gas grenades. And there's of course no reason pepper spray uses compressed gas instead of just being a plastic bag with powder. Besides aesthetics obviously.
And if you think that stuff qualifies as a weapon you should really read up on it a bit more.

<>Thus, you turn to an assassin who has developed a means of indirect attack against a high value target. The Ninja is perhaps the world's best in this regard as they developed an entire martial art around the concept of assassination.Totally. And thats why they flip out and kill people all the time.

I think we are having a problem with semantics. There is a difference between a killing and an assassination. The semantic "assassination" implies a high value target.High value targets tend to be guarded pretty well, typically by people who also know all about the available assassination techniques, and know how to guard against them. The most important part of any assassination in history has always been catching the target at a vulnerable moment when a simple and effective attack can be carried out, not super-secret-awesome-ninja-skills.

dgiharris
06-22-2009, 12:35 AM
...Though you pretty much correctly got my point. Additionally for clarification though, i'd like to know what you consider those "normal assassins" the likes of which Ninjas were not.
For additional clarification, my argument is even that Ninjas were not only not the uber deadly assassins as which they're being portraied, but also that their actual work was mainly, and mostly, intelligence gathering, and not assassinations.

I believe that Ninjas were used for all forms of covert ops to include: Assassinations, intelligence gathering, blackmail, extortion, and anything else that is unpleasant and requires highly trained individuals with loose morals.

In terms of Ninjas and thier skills for assassinations. The documentation on Ninjas list an impressive array of weapons and their martial art does make them deadly. Expert skill in ANY martial arts makes one deadly and I'm wondering why you will not acknowledge that basic fact. WHen you spend years of your life studying ANY art, you tend to get pretty good at it.

I don't need to believe in the hollywood 'mysticism' to be impressed with thier skill and abilities in the art of assassination. I think that you think I believe Ninjas have some magical ability or superhuman skill. I do not. I just happen to respect any highly trained person in their craft. No idea why you are so cavalier in dismissing them. I mean, do you apply your beliefs to all martial arts. Are you going to argue that Shaolin Monks, Mau Thai Fighters, and other martial arts are overrated overblown arts that have no basis in fact and that their documentation and historical records are likewise fake or invalid?


"Show me the records" is not an argument, it's a request. If someone invokes historical records, as you did, it's quite obvious others might actually want to read them for themselves.

I showed you a wiki article which had a listing of DOZENS of references. In an argument of this caliber, I consider Wiki more than adequate, especially when that wiki article lists dozens of books and sources in the bibliography section. I made my point and now you refuse to acknowledge it? What do I need, a Harvard Journal?

I mean, what exactly is your argument? That Ninjas did not have the weapons the sources site or that Ninjas did not have the training?


Well back atcha buddy. Apparently you have a very nice concept of how to carry out assassination. Me, i don't really have an idea what weapon would serve an assassin best. I'm not one. I am however a person who quite often, for various reason connected to stuff i do, check up on criminal statistics most police departments in democratic nations are quite happy to provide, even online. And i notice a distinctive lack of sniper rifles as causes of deaths. Especially among high-profile victims. But who knows, maybe all those sniping hitmen work in china and africa.

Few things. I will acknowledge that obtaining data on high profile deaths will be problematic. I mean, I can list JFK and Martin Lurther King as they are the most famous. Similarly, there is no special classification for "Sniper Death". All gunshots are just lumped together.

But there is a lot of indirect evidence that supports my claims. For instance, all major governments have military and Intelligence organizations with Sniper Divisions. Why would they have them if they were useless?

But I will acknowledge that there are other methods for assassinations, all depends on access to the target and your ability to get 'close' to them.


Yes, i haven't done any reasearch on Ninjas in quite a while, and i only remember what conclusions i reached. I won't claim to have hard historical data or impressive expert's opinion if i can't point them out because i don't remember anymore where i found them.
A wiki article on ninjutsu is what your "historical facts" amount to? Seriously?

Yes, as I said above, the Wiki article references dozens of books and other sources. I consider it more than adequate for this level of argument.


See, that's what happens to me when someone seriously argues that throwing powder is some kind super-effective secret weapon that had samurais guarding their lieges baffled for centuries.
Yah, throwing ground glass and pepper is of course absolutely as effective as tear gas grenades. And there's of course no reason pepper spray uses compressed gas instead of just being a plastic bag with powder. Besides aesthetics obviously.
And if you think that stuff qualifies as a weapon you should really read up on it a bit more.

In terms of the red pepper and grounded/powdered glass combo. I was making that argument that myths are grounded in fact and I was explaining how a myth (i.e. ninjas can disappear in thin air) got started.

In terms of the effectiveness of said weapon, that weapon would be INCREDIBLY effective in a hand to hand or sword to sword combat scenario. If you don't believe me, go into the kitchen, grab a fist full of red pepper, and throw it in your eye. Can't believe I need to argue the effectiveness of this?

In terms of its use today, I was making the point that the weapon is still viable, albeit we modernized it by putting it into a high pressure aerosal can. But the principle is the same, that was my argument. I mean, would you argue that the musket rifle was not effective simply because we have better guns today?


High value targets tend to be guarded pretty well, typically by people who also know all about the available assassination techniques, and know how to guard against them. The most important part of any assassination in history has always been catching the target at a vulnerable moment when a simple and effective attack can be carried out, not super-secret-awesome-ninja-skills.

I agree with what you are saying here, but not quite sure how you reach your end conclusion.

In order to catch a target at a vulnerable moment, it helps if you've had that super-secret-awesome-ninja-skill.

For instance, one of the most valueable skills in this regard is discipline to remain still for excruciatingly long periods of time. And then, after remaining still, being able to utilize your muscles. This is something that the majority of the untrained can not do.

Or, you catch your target at a vulnerable moment, it helps if you are expert at hand to hand combat, submissions, etc.

What is your argument. That a normal untrained person is just as good an assassin as someone who studied a martial art that revolves around killing people and not getting caught?

IMHO, I respect all arts and disciplines. Everything is complicated. Do I think that I can do as good a job as decorating someones house as someone whose spent years studying interior design?

Do I think I can cook as well as someone whose spent years studying at a culinary institute?

Do I think I can design an airplane with the same level of confidence as an Aeronautical engineer?

Why should I believe that a 'normal' person would be just as good at killing as someone whose spent years studying how to do it?

The principles behind ANYTHING are always the same. The only thing that changes is technology.

Mel...

Lhun
07-01-2009, 02:29 AM
In terms of Ninjas and thier skills for assassinations. The documentation on Ninjas list an impressive array of weapons and their martial art does make them deadly.And what documentation would that be? And how reliable is it? There's also documentation that claims the "Flying Guillotine" was really used by assassins in china. The fact that it is probably the most idiotic weapon ever invented (yes, worse than nunchucks) didn't stop it from being layed down in "documentation".

Expert skill in ANY martial arts makes one deadly and I'm wondering why you will not acknowledge that basic fact.Because it's not a fact.

WHen you spend years of your life studying ANY art, you tend to get pretty good at it.Probably. I spent years learning to play a musical instrument and yet i'm not deadly with it. Many martial arts are far from deadly. That's the reason why there's actually a very limited range of styles/style mixes people use in MMA tournaments. MMA tournaments are not exactly deadly combat either, but they're a lot closer than boxing match.
And the belief that any unarmed martial art makes you capable of fighting a trained swordsman is as patently silly as the belief that a trained swordsman is a match for a trained gunman.
I don't need to believe in the hollywood 'mysticism' to be impressed with thier skill and abilities in the art of assassination. I think that you think I believe Ninjas have some magical ability or superhuman skill. I do not.I think you think they were the bestest awesomest covert operatives in medieval cultures on earth. Because you pretty much said so.
I think that's plain silly. Neither would a ninja stand up in a one-on-one match against a japanese samurai, nor were they all that extraordinary in comparison to spies found in other cultures. The probably most unique characteristic of Ninjas is that Japanese culture was so stiffly organized in a caste-like feudal system that'd you'd got spies who developed their own subcultures. Which still says nothing about their competence.

I just happen to respect any highly trained person in their craft. No idea why you are so cavalier in dismissing them. I mean, do you apply your beliefs to all martial arts. Are you going to argue that Shaolin Monks, Mau Thai Fighters, and other martial arts are overrated overblown arts that have no basis in fact and that their documentation and historical records are likewise fake or invalid?I have a lot of respect for Muay Thai fighters, and not a lot of respect for Shaolin Monks. Though i suppose that would take a whole new thread to explain why. Suffice it to say that Muay Thai is one of the most commonly seen kickboxing styles used by MMA winners, while Shaoling Kung Fu, well, isn't.

I showed you a wiki article which had a listing of DOZENS of references.It listed 12 which is not actually "DOZENS".

In an argument of this caliber, I consider Wiki more than adequate, especially when that wiki article lists dozens of books and sources in the bibliography section. I made my point and now you refuse to acknowledge it? What do I need, a Harvard Journal?What i would appreciate is some historical document reference that is reliable (i.e. not a fairy tale) or possibly something written by a historian who analyzed such historical documents.
"Secret Guide to Making Ninja Weapons" or "Secrets from the Ninja Grandmaster" weren't exactly what i was looking for.
Another thing about the wiki article you should take note of, is the interesting little tidbit that it is doubtful that most of todays ninjutsu schools actually have roots in ancient ninjutsu. Which is not very surprising if you know that actually most japanese unarmed martial arts are far from ancient. Japanese archery and kenjutsu have a long tradition, but stuff like karate? Hardly older than a century.

I mean, what exactly is your argument? That Ninjas did not have the weapons the sources site or that Ninjas did not have the training?That ninjas were not the out-flipping killing machines as commonly believed. That the weapons commonly depicted as used by ninja were, ninjutsu or not, not a match for a competent guard with a good old sword. That ninjas on the whole did a lot more spying, gathering intelligence, and poisoning wells than they did assassination with shuriken.

Few things. I will acknowledge that obtaining data on high profile deaths will be problematic.Well the high profile deaths should be easy to find out about. Heck, they're usually on wikipedia. If there's any assassinating going on that doesn't appear in the media, it's either not done by obvious means, or not done to obvious people.

I mean, I can list JFK and Martin Lurther King as they are the most famous.I think listing people who got caught, and that even though they were lone lunatics, not participants in a conspiracy, (which murder for higher is) is not exactly the best advertising for using a sniper rifle.

Similarly, there is no special classification for "Sniper Death". All gunshots are just lumped together.Don't know about the police where you live. Over here gunshot deaths are rare enough, and the police (actually the MoJ) will provide extremely detailed statistics. Besides, that serial killer who randomly sniped people from his car a few years back was in the media after what? The second victim?

But there is a lot of indirect evidence that supports my claims. For instance, all major governments have military and Intelligence organizations with Sniper Divisions. Why would they have them if they were useless?Because they're not hitmen? That's not indirect evidence. It's evidence of that fact that sniper rifles are useful for something. In the case of government organisations, the "not getting caught" factor is not an issue, which would be the highest priority for any assassin.

But I will acknowledge that there are other methods for assassinations, all depends on access to the target and your ability to get 'close' to them.From the last few incidences i remember, getting close doesn't seem to be a problem for assassins, at least when they're not carring guns or grenades.

In terms of the effectiveness of said weapon, that weapon would be INCREDIBLY effective in a hand to hand or sword to sword combat scenario. If you don't believe me, go into the kitchen, grab a fist full of red pepper, and throw it in your eye. Can't believe I need to argue the effectiveness of this?Let's try this out then. You get the handful of pepper, i get a sword. Let's see if your pepper stops me from skewering you. Yeah, sure, maybe you can use the stuff when you surprise me, but then you could have used a club as well.

In terms of its use today, I was making the point that the weapon is still viable, albeit we modernized it by putting it into a high pressure aerosal can. But the principle is the same, that was my argument.And my argument is that even today's improved versions aren't all that great. There are many cases where pepper spray used in self defense didn't fend off the attacker, only made him angry. Heck, there's even a case were cops tried to taser someone, who proceeded to get into a firefight with the cops. The guy died, i think one or more of the cops too. (though it was a pretty idiotic decision to taser someone on a shooting range)

I mean, would you argue that the musket rifle was not effective simply because we have better guns today?If even todays rifles weren't very reliable, then i'd argue that muskets were ineffective, yes.

In order to catch a target at a vulnerable moment, it helps if you've had that super-secret-awesome-ninja-skill.That depends on what super-secret-awesome-ninja-skills you are referring to.

For instance, one of the most valueable skills in this regard is discipline to remain still for excruciatingly long periods of time. And then, after remaining still, being able to utilize your muscles. This is something that the majority of the untrained can not do.I agree with that.

Or, you catch your target at a vulnerable moment, it helps if you are expert at hand to hand combat, submissions, etc.Not with that. IF you're confronting a guard armed with a sword, your unarmed martial arts are useless. And if the guard is armored, sillyness like blowdarts or shuriken are pretty useless too. And if you manage to hit them before they notice you, you better hope they're not going to raise an alarm before the poison takes them out.

What is your argument. That a normal untrained person is just as good an assassin as someone who studied a martial art that revolves around killing people and not getting caught?My argument is that there are martial arts that have perfected killing people and worked extremely well as history has proven. Examples are european fencing of the german and italian schools, or kenjutsu. Or in short: if you want to kill someone, bring a weapon. My argument is that no unarmed martial art anywhere in the world made the user equal to someone trained in a martial art employing weapons.
My argument is that no fancy secret ninja weapon is even half as effective as a sword.
My argument is that ninjas weren't capable of sneaking around, silently killing guards on their way to the target, and sneaking out again after assassinating him.

IMHO, I respect all arts and disciplines. Everything is complicated. Do I think that I can do as good a job as decorating someones house as someone whose spent years studying interior design?There is a difference between respecting that someone has spent a lot of time learning how to do something, and pretending what they learned is something it's not. The people who do that ridiculous no-touch chi stuff take it seriously too, and spend a lot of time on it. I respect their discipline, i will not pretend for a second that what they're doing deserves to be called a martial art or is anything but a theatrical exercise. Doing that would disrespect the people who do actual martial arts, like Karate, Muy Thai or Judo.

Why should I believe that a 'normal' person would be just as good at killing as someone whose spent years studying how to do it?We're not talking about a normal person. We're talking about someone who actually spent his time training something effective. For example a professional soldier like a samurai.

The principles behind ANYTHING are always the same. The only thing that changes is technology.Eh, not really. But that's a different discussion i think.