Jump to content

Stonker

Platinum Members
  • Posts

    2,564
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by Stonker

  1. Possibly also worth mentioning that Lt Col Pak Loharachun, the Army medic who stayed with the boys throughout, was also not a cave diver but only had Navy seal diver training.
  2. Sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with that. You're absolutely correct about the difference in dive standards and experience (I'm only a basic PADI diver, with nearly all my dives in the Red Sea, but I've also done some caving and led expeds in the Niah caves in Indonesia and the Tawi Atair sinkhole in Oman so I know the differences), but the problem was that without the Navy Seals the experts in cave diving could never have moved enough tanks themselves to carry out the rescue. Yes, the Seals were way outside their comfort and training zone and they were totally untrained or qualified for the job, but they were all there was and without their involvement all the boys would have died. Ideally, yes, "Thai police divers [would] have their people trained in cave environments with FFM and sidemount assembly", but they weren't - and, to be fair, how many police forces have that? None, that I'm aware of. They weren't "irresponsible", but they were the best that were available and without them the boys would have all died. That was the option.
  3. Sorry about that, I'm trying to be patient and informative but my patience is being tried to the limit! The guns for that particular shoot had apparently been checked by the armourer, Hanna Gutierrez-Reed, before a lunch break and put on a cart on the set where they appear to have been left unsupervised. After the lunch break, off set, the guns do not appear to have been checked again and one was picked up by Dave Hall, the assistant director, and handed to Alec Baldwin, telling him and the crew that it was a "cold gun". Reportedly none of those who handled the weapons on the set, including the propmaster and the armourer, were members of Local 44, the propmasters and armourers' union and not only was the armourer inexperienced as I've described before but she was also unlicensed as required by IATSE . According to CNN and the Associated Press, Dave Halls, the assistant director who handed Alec Baldwin the gun, "was fired from the 2019 production [of 'Freedom's Path'] after a crew member suffered a minor injury "when a gun was unexpectedly discharged.” The producer, who asked not to be identified by name, wrote that Halls “was removed from the set immediately." Production did not resume until Halls was gone." As @Marc26 mentioned before, it's now been reported (but not confirmed) that the set guns had not only been used by the crew for off-set target practice, but the live rounds used which should never have been brought on to the set had been stored with the shoot's blank rounds contrary to all industry standards and rules. While reported as "misfires", stand-ins for Alec Baldwin had previously had two accidental discharges on set, coincidentally with the same gun only a few days before which had not yet been invetsigated with no action taken, and crew members had walked off the set in protest at the lack of safety precautions. It's not just one instance of negligence or even a string of unfortunate coincidences, but a whole string of constant negligence and disinterest in any form of safety, regulation and checks. Edit: any questions on any aspect, please ask away as it's not only something I'm interested in but one of the few things I know much about and may be able to easily shed some light on. 2nd edit: please, though, stay away from suggesting that maybe the inquest in the Brandon Lee case and all the recognised experts who gave evidence were wrong, as I really have got bored with that particular line which has tried my patience
  4. I'm sorry, but I just can't be bothered to reply any more of your posts after this. What you keep saying is "not possible" is exactly what happened to Brandon Lee, as the inquest found based on expert evidence and the police found after over a month's enquiry. I've already given several links confirming this, referencing the district attorney's conclusions, and it's been widely reported again recently. "In 1993, Brandon — the 28-year-old son of martial arts legend Bruce Lee — died after being shot with a prop gun that was supposed to fire blank cartridges on the set of The Crow. The tip of a .44-caliber bullet was lodged in the gun’s barrel and when the blank was fired, it was expelled. The bullet hit Brandon's abdomen, damaged several organs and lodged near his spine. He died on March 31, 1993." It happens in some cases, as I said, but not in all. What you are saying is simply completely incorrect, and that's being as polite as I can be. If you disagree, as you keep on doing, maybe you should contact the North Carolina District Attorney's Office as I suggested before and I'm sure they'll give your opinion that they and all the firearms experts who gave evidence under oath were wrong all the respect you deserve.
  5. Yes, that's a single action. The double action looks nearly identical externally, but there are different types of action including hammerless so it's veering a bit off topic to go into them all.
  6. It gets MUCH worse - MUCH, MUCH WORSE. Wait a few minutes .... That's known as "fanning". Incredibly inaccurate, you simply fan / sweep the hammer while holding the trigger back. Very, very few revolvers have external safeties, but it takes a heavy pull on the trigger to cock a double action as it's all manual, and most modern revolvers have an internal safety that means the revolver can't be fired without pulling the trigger. An experienced "action" actor could have been expected to notice, but at the same time it's not their direct responsibility and they should be shown the state of the weapon by the person handing it to them.
  7. And here: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/09/30/5c0930a20cda3da32670edd37ae76ac2.jpg (sorry, that didn't come out either!)
  8. There have been a few seriously worrying developments / allegations in the media in the last couple of days, which I'll put in a separate post as they take negligence and incompetence to a whole new level, but I think it may be worth pointing out a few things about revolvers, particularly 19th century ones as used here, which some may not be aware of. https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/images-firearms/copy2_of_DSC_0120revolver.png/image There are a few exceptions such as top-break revolvers, but in general there are two different types of revolvers: single action and double action. Single action revolvers are cocked manually by pulling back the hammer, usually with the thumb, and then fired by pulling the trigger which releases the hammer which then hits the primer at the base of the cartridge, etc. Double action revolvers can be cocked manually, like a single action, which gives a smoother and lighter trigger pull, or they can be cocked by pulling the trigger: the first "action" cocks the weapon, pulling back the hammer, and then continuing to pull the trigger releases the hammer (the second "action") which then hits the primer, etc. Both look virtually the same externally. Pulling back the hammer in either a single or double action revolver also turns (revolves) the cylinder by one chamber. The reason I mention this is that unlike a pistol / automatic where it's difficult to know if they're loaded or not or whether there's a round ready to fire in the chamber without physically checking and handling the weapon, removing the magazine, etc, with a revolver it's much simpler to do with a visual check since you can see most of the rounds in the cylinder. You usually can't see them easily from behind as there's a shield / plate behind the cylinder to stop the rounds falling out, but from the front you can easily see the heads of all the rounds in the cylinder except those at the top or bottom of the cylinder which are behind the frame. Since cocking the revolver turns the cylinder by one chamber, the "top" round which was hidden isn't the one fired when the trigger is pulled, but it's the round in the next chamber which is fired which was easily visible with a quick glance, which would have told you straightaway if that chamber was empty or not. In this instance there was no reason for the weapon handed to Alec Baldwin to have any sort of rounds in it at all - drill / dummy rounds, blanks, or live rounds. All the chambers should have been empty, and a cursory glance by anyone with even a passing familiarity with weapons could and should have confirmed that. It wasn't even a shoot, as the cameras weren't even rolling at the time, it was simply a practice run through so that Baldwin could practice a cross draw - where you draw a gun that's holstered pointing backwards on the opposite hip rather than the same side, which is still how many carry a gun operationally as it's much easier to access when sitting down. A top-break revolver - a S&W .38 Hammerless five chamber A cross draw and conventional rig: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/09/30/5c0930a20cda3da32670edd37ae76ac2.jpg
  9. Phuket's population is less than one percent of the country. What about the other 99%? Sure, I couldn't agree more that "the important thing for Thailand is to get vaccinated as soon as possible" but it hasn't happened yet so what's wrong with waiting until does?
  10. Jeez Louise ..... No Thais I know are "blaming" tourists for spreading Covid, or "concerned" about tourists spreading Covid. What they're all worried about, though, is that in order for tourists to come the country will have to be attractive to tourists, which means unrestricted travel, nightlife, entertainment, bars, social 'mixing' and no masks. For everyone - tourists and Thais. That means that whether fully and effectively vaccinated or not everyone's more likely to catch Covid. For tourists that's not a problem as most are fully and effectively vaccinated, and even if they catch Covid they're likely to be asymptomatic so no one will even know. For Thais, though, most aren't fully vaccinated yet and they're unlikely to be this year, and most of those who are (and will be) fully vaccinated are vaccinated with one or more doses of Sinovac which is next to useless. So while tourists may have little to worry about, Thais do and THAT is what they're concerned about.
  11. Umm ... maybe he's come twice ... ... my point isn't about @JamesE's holidays, but was just that because I and others aren't really interested in it isn't because it's "something positive" so we've boycotted it, as you've concluded and you're using as a stick to bash around with, but is just because it's of little real interest.
  12. Well, no, because "for many like me our only interest in tourists and wannabe tourists is how they affect us". I haven't met a foreign tourist here for years, nor have I seen any, but that doesn't mean that either I nor those around me are unaffected by them.
  13. As I said, I may well have the wrong person but if I recall correctly he came here for a holiday before during the Covid restrictions, got through all the more complicated hoops, then went home early as it wasn't what he'd hoped for.
  14. Well ... yes, as they've sold them that all that's needed are vaccines and then we can all go home for tea and medals. It doesn't work that way, unfortunately, as that's just one factor albeit a vital one that you can't do without.
  15. I'm not 'Rob', but I retired ("in my 30's") as did others I know. I'm not defending @RobMuir, far from it, but that doesn't make him a troll !
  16. Maybe it's not "because it is something positive", but because many of us are already here and have been for decades so not unnaturally we don't really have "any interest in that thread" or "how it is on the ground" because we're already "on the ground". We're not all tourists or wannabe tourists, and for many like me our only interest in tourists and wannabe tourists is how they affect us. I like @JamesE's posts and respect his POV, genuinely, but I just don't have any interest in that thread - that doesn't mean I'm against his thread or his POV because it's "something positive".
  17. Ummm ..... if I recall correctly, not @JamesE ! I was just finding it hard to understand how someone going home early from a holiday because they weren't enjoying it could be a "positive success story". Personally, I haven't left Thailand for nearly fifteen years as I've had no reason or wish to, I've been living here for nearly thirty years so nearly half my life, there's nowhere else in the world I'd sooner be and nobody I'd sooner be with, and I haven't met or spoken to anyone other than Thais for at least a couple of years which hasn't made much difference to me one way or the other. Whether that's "positive" or not depends on your POV.
  18. I'm not too sure why "mostly watching Thai TV" would be something to puff your chest out about .....
  19. Do you have a link for that? I may well be confusing him with someone else (again), in which case I apologise in advance, but I thought he went home early as his holiday was so "miserable".
  20. Agreed 100% - as long as it's in that order and you realise that "the vulnerable" are a third of the population, and that the only way to "protect the vulnerable" is for everyone to play their part.
  21. "internet experts"? None here, on any side of the vax debate, noticed or remarked on this little gem in both the Thaiger article and the source report in the Phuket News: That should have struck anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Covid and vaccines like a sledgehammer between the legs
  22. The various films and accounts show the different sides depending on who bought the rights to whose story, so this particular version is mainly from the perspective of the two Brits. Others are from Dr Harris' perspective or from the boys'.
  23. He was actually a retired Navy diver who volunteered to go and help, which makes his death all the more worthy of respect.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By posting on Thaiger Talk you agree to the Terms of Use