Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
I am not giving relevance to either study.
|
That doesn't seem to be the case here in post #116 where your language suggests otherwise-
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
Ok of 156 or 157 shootings he only used 27 bullets that met his "criteria" but M&S is made up RIGHT........
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
What I have said all along is that none of the people doing these "studies" for coin are above fudging the data to make their point and I pointed that out.
|
You'll have to do better than that. Not everyone acts dishonestly and "blanket accusations" of misconduct and dishonesty are worthless without proof. The article by Wolberg has never been debunked as being fraudulent in any way despite your claims. If you can prove otherwise, I'd happily invite you to show me a source (other than some anonymous internet poster) that refutes Wolberg's article, "
Performance of the Winchester 9mm 147 Grain Subsonic Jacketed Hollow Point Bullet in Human Tissue and Tissue Simulant", as being fraudulent.
As I've posted before, here are the sources debunking M&S that I've cited-
Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters
Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan
Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by D. MacPherson
So, where is your citable source(s) that debunks the Wolberg article as being fraudulent here in post #94?
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.
|
Source, please?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nanuk:
If the IWBA was not blowing smoke why then is it gone? Why did the FBI run them off?
|
The FBI ran no one off. IWBA simply disbanded for many reasons, none of which have anything to do with the individual researchers' integrity. You can distract with unsubstantiable claims of misconduct and dishonesty all that you want, but your lack of citable material in support of your claims produces a deafening silence all on its own.
I've shown the three (3) citable sources for my claims re: the M&S study.
Where are your sources in support of your claims of data manipulation re: the Wolberg article in post #94 (presented below once again)?
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.
|