OK, two examples and it is not my claim. It is the claim (the categorical trend mentioned above) of those who've debunked M&S.
I never used the words
"true without exception" and was speaking to the categorical trends represented in M&S's claims. Your attribution to me of language that I didn't employ is an inaccurate portrayal of what I said and I'd really appreciate it if you could find it in yourself to refrain from putting words in my mouth. Not harshing you here, just asking for a little consideration before you assign to me words that I never used.
Duncan MacPherson addresses (pages 18-22) in his book, "Bullet Penetration", the high improbability (about one in one trillion) of M&S's results coming out as they did (regardless of caliber, the lightest, fastest bullets always ended up at the top of the ranking
MacPherson makes a claim in the bold section above. It is the equivalent of true without exception. You cited it so it's reasonable to believe you support it. Further more, you don't bring in the claim that it's about a trend until I show that the categorical claim is wrong.
Sanow was caught in such (mis)conduct a number of times when departmental personnel (from various departments) whom he claimed he had contacted and obtained "data" from had no idea who the guy was when contacted by those investigating the source and validity of the M&S offerings.
Yep, he made the mistake of outing his sources. His sources didn't have permission to give out the info, so they denied it.
The claims of data and statistical tampering are clearly supported by those who've debunked the statistical work put forth by M&S that supports the trend (light & fast is the "best") claimed. I remain inclined to accept them (the various highly educated folks who've done the analyses) at their respective word and see little to be gained from repeating their efforts.
If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to see the results of your analytical audit refuting the findings of those who've already examined the offerings of M&S and found them to be spurious.
From your statements above, you appear to hold the opinion that those who've debunked M&S, and those who accept those findings, are in error. Have you done anything in the way of a procedural analysis/audit that can substantiate that position?