Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
They drank their own cool aid and manipulated data to suit their agenda, Dr Wolberg at San Diego was one of the obvious ones with the paper on the subsonic 147 grain 9mm.
|
Still peddling the same worn-out disinformation, huh?
Wolberg's research paper is valid, here's why-
It is common and accepted practice for researchers to select the parametric and data constraints for their case studies. If this were viewed as reason to discredit his or anyone else's research and findings, then every case study research article that has ever been written and its findings would have to be thrown out. In fact, parametric and constraint selection is a sound practice within scientific research projects and to attempt to portray it as some sort of dishonesty is an act of intellectual dishonesty itself. So long as it is done honestly and openly (as evidenced by Wolberg's explanations of the constraints of his data selection on the first page of the article cited above) and the reasons for such constraint can be shown to be valid, then it is a valid practice.
Wolberg does this on the first page (marked as page 10) of the article stating:
Quote:
|
from pg. 10- fifth paragraph: "It should be noted that all head wounds, and bone hits were eliminated; this study deals only with shots that penetrated soft-tissue of the torso and did not hit bone."
|
In case you haven't read the paper, Wolberg was attempting to establish a correlation for the behavior of expanding projectiles in soft tissue and calibrated ordnance gelatin which is a soft tissue analog. Therefore, it was necessary to eliminate the data that included hits to bony tissue and the cranium since the correlative relationship being investigated is one involving projectile behavior in soft tissue and a soft tissue analog- not that of calibrated ordnance gelatin to bony tissues.
Wolberg states (also on the article's first page) that only shots that remained within the bodies of those being autopsied were considered for this correlative study:
Quote:
|
from pg. 10- second paragraph: "Only shots into the torso that remained in the body for their entire penetration depth were included in the study."
|
This constraint is justifiable also, because in order to compare total penetration depths in both mediums the entire wound track must be captured so that it can be measured. Projectiles that exited the bodies of those in the available test population cannot be used because the projectile's wound track was not captured in its entirety. Wolberg's disclaimer states this clearly and in plain language on the first page (10) of his research article and the language quoted above is taken directly from his article. That he elected to inform the reader of the constraints that he employed speaks volumes to the man's character.
Portraying Wolberg as being dishonest, when in fact he wasn't, as is demonstrated by the disclaimers described above, is intellectual dishonesty.
Anyone wishing to read Wolberg's article for themselves-
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler...hester_9mm.pdf
-may do so and confirm for themselves the text that I have specifically quoted from the article and that it is presented clearly and plainly for anyone to see.