Talk:Rob Furlong

message: I saw a documentary on this guy and other Canadian snipers in Afghanistan.
I think the subsequent military investigation into conduct of Canadian snipers should be mentioned in this article, as they relate to his reasons for leaving the military.
I think this is worth mentioning.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.197.117 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsequent military investigation 

message: I suggest too much in this story is being taken at face value and that the idea of "confirmation" must be questioned in two regards.
1)  At the extreme range of almost 2.5 kilometers, it is not possible to 'confirm' visually that the target was killed.  He may have been wounded.  He may have been missed entirely and either dropped out of sight behind a boulder or played possum.  The fact is that sniper teams operating at these ranges do not have the opportunity and do not in fact moved forward to check their targets.  Even with the spotter's scope - which is not identified - determining definitively the health of a target at almost 2.5 kilometers on a boulder strewn mountainside borders on the magical.  The additional claim that at almost 2.5 kilometers, the spotter could tell the bag was hit by the second shot should raise questions by itself.
2)  Range.  How was the range measured?  This is not identified, even though it is the key aspect of this supposed record breaking shot.  Was it by map inspection?  Anyone with any experience with maps at altitude in mountainous terrain knows that ranging errors of up to 20% are common even among well trained forward observers.  Was it by laser rangefinder?  At almost 2.5 kilometers, a handheld laser rangefinder's beam plays all over the background, creating a significant variation in readings. 
As there is no organization that tracks and verifies notable sniper shots, we have only the word of the participants for the details.  This alone dictates that the article take a much more conditional, if not skeptical, tone.  Since the two key aspects of the shot - the target's death and the range - totally lack details on how they were confirmed, and lack corroborating evidence, the whole issue of longest shot is merely one of claim and conjecture.
Suggest the article be rewritten so that it faithful and respectfully convey's Furlong's claims, but notes the realistic problems with confirmation and the fact that there is no way to realistically adjudicate between various claims as they all depend on battlefield observation rather than concrete measurements.
76.125.60.188 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmation? 

message: This article is in error by crediting Furlong with the longest sniper kill in history.
That record still belongs to the late Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock, USMC.  Hathcock made his kill at some two yards, or 1.39 meters, further than Furlong.
I've added a dispute tag to the relevant section and noted the discrepancies in the figures given for the Canadian corporal and the American gunnery sergeant.
The anonymous user, 76.125.60.188, probably has a point.  When talking about distances of 1.5 miles, a yard or two is going to be very difficult to measure--especially in the chaos of a combat situation.  What if the target stumbles forward several feet from where he was fatally hit?  What if the target tumbles backward--particularly in the case of being hit with the Barrett Firearms M82A1's .50 caliber beast of a round (used by the US Army and Marines)?  Or if the body is moved by his fellow soldiers or, in the case of Furlong, al-Qaeda terrorists? (Though, given their disregard for life and common decency this is incredibly unlikely.)
Until accurate laser range finders (or similar technology) are miniaturized--and made tough enough!--enough to give us exact data, a certain amount of guess work (Gil Grissom wherefore art thou?) will be part of determining sniper kills over such huge distances.
Note: changed the term "militant" for the far more accurate term terrorist.  After all, a radical feminist can be labelled a militant while she is clearly not a terrorist.  Whereas all members of al-Qaeda are terrorists, none militants.  
Let's not adopt the lamestream media's gutlessness when it comes to language.  It be what it be.  And it ain't what it ain't.
PainMan (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation for dispute tag: Hathcock still holds record 

message: How was Hathcock's kill distance confirmed beyong reasonable doubt ? You would think more modern measuring techniques would give an over all more accurate measure of distance wouldnt you ? So come on, explain why you are asserting that Furlongs kill distance is in error please and Hathcock's ( all of approx 35 pre dating ) isnt.....
P.s. I have no account but will set one up very soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.131.177 (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey PainMan, why the assertion in your opening line ? Seems to strongly indicate a bias. 

message: Do not remove the information regarding him urinating on a colleague. It is from a reliable source. Myopia123 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urination