C-grunt
Member
Yeah that report in BS. Here a just a few red flags.
A) "Classified" versions exist? Why? It's a ballistics test, not a DARPA project.
B) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom the test was put together and the records held by a firearms training company and gun store.
C) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom you will see that the testers "come from" various government organizations. That means those credentials are just their job. If it was an official test it would say those organizations were involved and name them, not just that the people are from them.
D) Combining points A and C...... how are there "classified" versions of this report if it wasnt a government test/program to begin with? It's just dumb **** added to try and spice up the paper. Actually pretty dishonest if you ask me.
A) "Classified" versions exist? Why? It's a ballistics test, not a DARPA project.
B) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom the test was put together and the records held by a firearms training company and gun store.
C) If you read the acknowledgements at the bottom you will see that the testers "come from" various government organizations. That means those credentials are just their job. If it was an official test it would say those organizations were involved and name them, not just that the people are from them.
D) Combining points A and C...... how are there "classified" versions of this report if it wasnt a government test/program to begin with? It's just dumb **** added to try and spice up the paper. Actually pretty dishonest if you ask me.