The Strucker kids hold hands and fire at DCEU Superman. What happens?

@georgewbush: based on what exactly? only one of them has tanked a nuke

You don't get my point. He was stabbed only while having been exposed to Kryptonite, which was explained in-film to rapidly decay Kryptonian cells and weakening them.

Hurting and physical damage are two separate things. Hulk has been hurt by Thor's strikes but there is 0 signs of physical damage to his body.

@rr79: And that does not in any way mean that Doomsday could not have stabbed him with the spike without the Kryptonite as Doomsday was hurting him just fine with brute force before he even grew the spike and the spike didn't come into play until Superman left to save Lois. That is another form of no limits fallacy trying to say that the only reason that Doomsday was able to stab him was because of the Kryptonite when you have no evidence of that and we do have evidence that Doomsday could hurt him physically before the Kryptonite came into play.

I didn't say that Doomsday couldn't pierce him otherwise, but you cannot simply ignore the great factor of both Clark and and Doomsday being weakened by the Kryptonite. This is like ignoring the fact that Faora was having a sensory overload just to come to the conclusion "she was knocked out by a missile". It isn't a no limit fallacy, you're blatantly ignoring context.

Simple fact is that Doomsday was fully capable of hurting Superman with physical strikes before he grew the spike and before the Kryptonite came into play. There is zero evidence that Doomsday could not have stabbed him without the Kryptonite.

And show me one instance of physical damage to Clark's body from any hits he took from DD.

you realize he was pierced due to his cells decaying from Kryptonite exposure

This is what you said, and it implies that you think the only reason he was able to stab him was because of the Kryptonite. That is the only thing I was arguing on. If that isn't what you mean, fine.

I may has well had said that if you can't show any physical damage done to Clark's body prior to the stab. Again, pain and physical injury don't go hand in hand. Faora is a prime example. She showed great distress, pain and discomfort while having a sensory overload, but her body was completely unharmed by the missile she took, albeit it knocked her out.

Hulk being hurt by hurt by Thor's strikes doesn't mean it gave his body any physical injury.

You're going to need more proof that DD would've been able to pierce Clark otherwise. I still don't necessarily think Clark would've been immune to it, but your line of reasoning is lacking.

I'm sorry, but if you claim that Doomsday would not have been able to stab Clark without the Kryptonite, YOU are the one required to prove that, not the opposite. Fact is, Doomsday was hurting him just fine with blunt force, there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that Doomsday would not have been able to stab Clark without the Kryptonite being there. If you are not arguing that Doomsday would not have been able to stab Clark without the Kryptonite, then we are done. If you are, you are going to have to prove that, not asking for proof that he couldn't.

@DammeFavour: and only one of them has tanked molecular disintergration something which nukes can't do seeing as they leave matter behind and even sometimes turn humans into carbon not deatomize them

No. The person making the positive claim is the one who has the burden of proof.

The fact; Superman was stabbed by DD after being exposed to Kryptonite radiation.

The claim yet to be proven; Superman would've been stabbed without being exposed to Kryptonite radiation. This is your claim and you presented it to me.

You are therefore the one that has the burden of proof to make the claim on a matter of speculation. It is not by job to prove it wrong. Would I have to prove you wrong if I you made the claim that Unicorns exist? There's no need for a witch hunt when in actuality you have nothing substantial to back your mediocre argument

there is absolutely no evidence to support the theory that Doomsday would not have been able to stab Clark without the Kryptonite being there.

You clearly don't understand how scientific research works. This statement is proof of it. There, I've given proof of something.

@batman242: again your speculating and your wrong about burden of proof

If superman is so immune to physical damage why was he KOed by concrete vs Doomsday? Or KOed by an oil rig?

Your just making up headcannon and trying to use it here which is not how things work

When did I say that?

The point of my argument and that pain and physical damage are separate phenomena.

@batman242: You clearly do not understand burden of proof. You are the one making the claim, not me. The burden of proof lies on you.

@batman242:

"And show me one instance of physical damage to Clark's body from any hits he took from DD."

And yet he was KOed when hit by a concrete pillar like a third way into the fight

And that does not in any way mean that Doomsday could not have stabbed him with the spike without the Kryptonite as Doomsday was hurting him

This is your claim. I simply rejected it.

Great, now show the physical damage to his bones, cartilage or skin that would lead me to think DD would've pierced him otherwise.

Dude, seriously? YOU made the claim that without the Kryptonite Doomsday would not have been able to stab Superman. Seriously you can't be that dense. It is YOUR claim, the burden of proof lies on YOU.

I didn't say that Doomsday couldn't pierce him otherwise, but you cannot simply ignore the great factor of both Clark and and Doomsday being weakened by the Kryptonite.

I may has well had said that

Yea, I sure did make that claim.

Please, don't address me again.

@batman242: ohhhh I see your just trolling, so seeing some getting KOed isn't enough to show damage?

I don't know why I waste my time

Concussing a person's brain is the same as damaging their bones, skin and tissue now.

You clearly can't tell the difference.

Concussing a persons brain can be MORE damaging than breaking bone, skin or tissue.

Lol and you expect your theory to be accepted. We know what a nuke does, and the condition superman was in is exactly how radiation overdose looks like.

Add in the fact that he absorbs radiation from Jor el own words " your cells have drunk its radiation". Is it a stretch to conclude it was radiation? The same thing happened when he was exposed to kryptonite, he couldn't even heal a cut and had to rely on his powersource to heal.

Also since superman started saving people from the oil rig he has been portrayed as immune to fire, what else is there?

If you think all that is fan theory, please tell us the facts then

@rr79: the 3 things being

1. Concussive force- Arent you the one who claimed that the nuke detonated in space thus no concussive force. Besides concussive force causes a different kind of damage. Do you believe concussive forces can zombify someone?
2. Heat- Superman has never been burned throuought his appearances, and every time he encountered heat (fire, plasma, heat vision) he has never had any burns, not even his hair or constume was burned. Do you believe heat can zombify someone?
3. Radiation- He gets his powers from absorbing radiation, that's from the sun. Kryptonite radiation weakens him. I like how you brought his comic counterpart, he absorbs our suns radiation for his powers, red sun depowers him, and he absorbs radiation from the nuke that depleted his solar reserves and zombified him. DCEU superman who is a comic book adaptation character applies too( Dark Knight Returns).

If you still think it's not the radiation that zombified him, could you just state what did for the record and we agree to disagree instead of dragging this out? ( Otherwise, you can't just reject obvious facts without disapproving them with your own)

@rr79: So basically you refuse facts without any facts to disapprove?

It's not a fan theory when there are facts and all lead to radiation being the cause. If you think it's a fan theory, disapprove it then with facts otherwise just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

@macleen: Name a single fact supporting your stance.

1. During Supermans flight, Jor el told clark about his ablity to absorb radiation. He absorbs enough for his flight, uses solar energy to heal and pretty much maintain his physique.
2. When he was exposed to kryptonite, you could see him weakening as a result of his cells being drained of solar energy, he even had a scar that wouldn't heal.
3. After a nuclear explosion his body was still intact, he had no burns( no even his hair), whether there was concussive force or not, the state his was in rules it out. The radiation depleted what was left of his solar energy( by now he already has a history of absorbing and being drained by different radiations) and he was a husk until the sun healed him and refilled his muscle mass. Add in the fact Snyder used the concept from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns.https://chireviewofbooks.com/2016/04/04/the-batman-v-superman-we-deserve-why-zack-snyder-used-the-wrong-source-material/

He has been shown to have no problem dealing with fire ever since the oil rig, he hasn't had a burn in his life even after the nuke scene he still had no burns. That's what you can't accept. The alternative is that the fire burnt him, but there is no evidence to proof in fact there is evidence to disapprove it. Now you can call it a NLF all you want but fact is, after 3 movies superman has yet to suffer burnt wounds( from oil rig fire, energy weapons from kryptonian ships and cyborg, to nukes). Add in with the fact the nuke was detonated high up in the atmosphere increasing it's radiation dosage.

Name yours.

Everything you posted has already been discussed. You didn't post anything new, nor did you post any facts supporting your fan theory. As for your link you are going to have to say where you are talking about. That is too much to read when I am tired but doing a search I could find no mention of nuclear, bomb, nuke, drain....any of those keywords you are claiming support your theory. Even the word radiate only shows up once in the entire article and says nothing about draining Superman of his powers.

@rr79: just apply the process of elimination:

Heat: his hair wasn't even singed at that temperature

Explosion: his body was completely intact with no bruise or damage

the last is radiation and he even looked like it, plus there's also the fact that it was taken directly from dkr

If you call looking like a zombie undamaged. And no, his body definitely did not look like radiation poisoning. I've seen radiation poisoning firsthand and it absolutely does not look like that.

@DammeFavour: u can't reason out with him.

With an obvious fan theory that has absolutely no basis in fact, sure can't.

@rr79: like ur Batman ducked under the explosion theory !!!

You mean the one that is proven by on screen video?

@rr79: where it clearly implies he took it , YeAh.

First, you are wrong and the video proves it. Second this thread has nothing to do with Batman, you want to talk about that, take it to another thread.

@rr79: the video clearly proves he took it and size of the explosion proves It.

Ur " Batman ducked under the explosion " is a baseless fan theory than what they have shown.

I am not the one to tag u and denying the obvious facts that 'superman was affected by radiation' which is known to everyone.

Do you not know how to read? If you want to talk about Batman do so in a thread talking about him. Fact is video proves you wrong, I will not discuss this with you in this thread anymore and if you keep posting off topic I will flag you for it.

@rr79:

U provided no facts or proof to disagree with me or anyone here ur just saying "video proves it " and "I've seen radiation poisoning firsthand and it absolutely does not look like that." With no proper proof to prove it and wasting everyone's time.

Ur just Ignoring the obvious facts consistently just to disagree with others.

@plotweapon16255: The only thing I am responding to is the radiation point, the rest is off topic. Look up radiation poisoning, even google will show you it doesn't look like that.

@rr79: why should I Google something that was clearly explained in BVS that superman was affected by kryptonite which is due to the fact that it's a radioactive material which clearly proves he was radiation poisoned from nuke.

Kryptonite has absolutely nothing to do with radiation from a nuke. And on that ridiculous note, I'm going to bed.

It was explained in the movie and official BVS bonus features kryptonite affected him coz of radiation and everyone knows nuke produces lots of radiation.

At least watch the movie or know something about it before disagreeing with everyone.

@rr79: Everything you posted has already been discussed. You didn't post anything new, nor did you post any facts supporting your fan theory. As for your link you are going to have to say where you are talking about. That is too much to read when I am tired but doing a search I could find no mention of nuclear, bomb, nuke, drain....any of those keywords you are claiming support your theory. Even the word radiate only shows up once in the entire article and says nothing about draining Superman of his powers.

So I just laid out my facts and all you can do is what? Nothing. I thought we had and agreement, I name my facts you name yours and then we can decide to agree to disagree. But you haven't done anything other than give excuse like being tired( get some rest and make your facts, comic vine isn't going anywhere). The dark knight Returns was the source material for the nuke concept. If you still don't understand go read it, hell I remember there was an animation about it, not sure where to find it though it's been a long time since I watched it. Otherwise I'm done debating about it.

@macleen: don't waste time with him.

@macleen:

During Supermans flight, Jor el told clark about his ablity to absorb radiation. He absorbs enough for his flight, uses solar energy to heal and pretty much maintain his physique.

If I am not mistaken(and I could be as it has been months since I have watched Man of Steel) Jor El told clark he could absorb solar radiation. Solar radiation and nuclear bomb radiation are not the same.

When he was exposed to kryptonite, you could see him weakening as a result of his cells being drained of solar energy, he even had a scar that wouldn't heal.

Again, very different type of radiation. Kryptonite is an iradiated piece of his home planet. It is not in the least comparable to the radiation produced by a nuclear bomb.

After a nuclear explosion his body was still intact, he had no burns( no even his hair), whether there was concussive force or not, the state his was in rules it out. The radiation depleted what was left of his solar energy( by now he already has a history of absorbing and being drained by different radiations) and he was a husk until the sun healed him and refilled his muscle mass. Add in the fact Snyder used the concept from Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns.https://chireviewofbooks.com/2016/04/04/the-batman-v-superman-we-deserve-why-zack-snyder-used-the-wrong-source-material/

His body still being intact doesn't mean anything. Think of this, Luke Cage was shot under the chin by a shotgun, it didn't break the skin but still did significant damage. Superman, in Man of Steel was KOed by Faora when she clotheslined him. She didn't break the skin but still did enough damage to have him unresponsive for nearly a minutes(and that was under sunlight). Sorry, but his body still being intact doesn't mean a thing. The only radiation that has ever had any effect on him was solar(very different than nuclear) and Kryptonite(again, very different than nuclear). And again, his body did not look anything like radiation poisoning would look. To me(this is just a fan theory and why I don't post it as fact) it looked more like a superhuman would look when they were in a vacuum and could not breathe. As for the sun healing him, that is obvious, it's what his powers are based on.

Sorry it took so long to reply, went to bed last night and then had to go in to work early today. By the time I got off I had forgotten about this.

Now, we can agree to disagree. The only thing I ask is that you don't post an unconfirmed fan theory as fact. Just because it makes sense to you does not, in any way, make it a fact.

@rr79:

1. Have you watched/read Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.( It's the source material).
2. What do you think zombified superman.You're doing nothing to make my facts false so far. STATE WHAT ZOMBIFIED SUPERMAN OR JUST LET IT GO.
3. I will only reply when you clearly state what made him a zombie.

So in other words you make a fan theory and because they did not clearly explain what caused it, you think that makes your fan theory correct? It was a crappy movie that didn't do a good job on anything other than Wonder Woman. That does not make your fan theory correct when it doesn't even make sense and looks nothing like what Radiation poisoning looks like.

I will agree to disagree with you here, but if I see you posting the fan theory as fact in another thread I will gladly disagree with it the same as here. Post it as your opinion if you want, but do not try to post it as fact.

Are you trying to bully me and facts?

@macleen: How do you get bullying out of me saying that if I see it posted as fact I will disagree with it? So now anytime someone disagrees with you its bullying? Seriously?