The hydrostatic shock theory?

[481]

No: "attacked" would be consistent with attempts to debunk the theory; "debunked" can only mean the process is complete, not "underway". I would have thought that was obvious, but I guess not?I have figured out that either you think so, or you don't and are just claiming it. In either case, your statement is false.

I wish there was something here sensible enough to respond to. Such jibberish is the dance of the desperate. You can parse definitions all that you want, the process remains what it is, like it or not.

Then may I suggest that you ask your question in a form that does not imply ulterior motives and deception?

He did ask it in a straighforward manner devoid of any implication. He even stated that he was simply curious.

JohnKSa, do you have any academic stake or commercial interest or association with the Courtneys or their "Ballistics testing Group?"
Just curious.

That you perceive it as having implied "ulterior motives" and or as a "deception" is not something that he can be held accountable for in his question. That you do this suggests an emotional investment on your behalf- something that many exhibit when they anticipate the imminent demise of a belief that they are emotionally invested in.

To keep things, you know, polite and high-road?Yes, and I explained why your question is very likely not pertinent. My question, which asked about your ego-stake (and which you declined to answer), certainly is pertinent.

An admirable suggestion. However, the motivation underlying your suggestion becomes questionable when in that very suggestion you then accuse him of having an "ego-stake" in something that he has demonstrated no such intention. Subtle, but inflammatory accusations following a request to keep it "high road" make your intentions in making such a request seem very suspect.

On what grounds did you refuse to answer my question? Whatever those grounds, those are also valid reasons that you should not have asked your question.

I think that the answer to this is evident if you take the time to read above what has been written.

 

[Loosedhorse]

He did ask it in a straighforward manner devoid of any implication. He even stated that he was simply curious.

In that case: do your comments indicate that you are stupid, lying, or merely ignorant? Just curious.

(Not a real question: simply a counter-example to your assertion that a "Just curious" question carries no implication. If you feel my "Just curious" coda in no way negates the insult in the question preceding, now you'd understand how I feel about Odd Job's "Just curious.")

that very suggestion you then accuse him of having an "ego-stake"

Yes. And I would not normally ask such a question.

But here, it was offered (again) as a counter-example: ego can always be at issue in a simple internet discussion; by contrast, it is hard to imagine how such a discussion can materially affect one's finances or career, as Odd Job implied.

If asking someone if they have an ego-stake in an argument (which would simply be human) is to be considered an insult, then how much more insulting to imply they are arguing dishonestly out of concealed, material self-interest?

 

[481]

You publish your methods and results and then they speak for themselves. If other researchers can't duplicate your results using your methods then your results are discarded. Happens all the time.

Precisely. Which exactly why the speculative construct remains where it is today. No one (except perhaps those disinclined towards the scientific model), no governmental entity, agency, military, or other organization is using it as a criteria for selecting their issued ammunition.

You claim that his cites are disengenuous and misleading, but most of them are from researchers who are currently active in the field and there's evidence that at least some of his sources are aware of his work. It follows that if he's truly misquoting them or misusing their work they would have something to say about it and yet I've seen no one present evidence that happening.

It is not just me making the claim. Other authorities upon review of his "work" have decribed the confounding issues with that effort. I agree with their analyses after reading and understanding their reasoning.

That you rely yet again upon the same assumption that his citation sources' silence constitutes their tacit approval of his misuse of their material tells me that you are unresponsive to any real open discourse.

...the outcome of the discussion will be determined not by who you know, where I went to school, where you work, or who I'm related to, but by the validity and strength of our arguments and the data we use to support them.

I'll say.

Your reliance upon the repetition of fallacious assumptions bodes poorly for the outcome of your argument.

 

[JShirley]

Enough

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You have to admit that psychology plays a part in it too. People have been taught to fall when shot from what they see it on TV etc. I think that accounts for a very large number of instant stops.

I know of a case where a Long Range Reconnaissance Patrol attempted to take a prisoner. They chose the last (enemy) in a column and shot him in the back with a silenced .22 pistol, hoping to disable him. He simply swatted at his back as if he had been stung by an insect. They shot him again, with the same result.

Finally, as they were reloading, they dropped the magazine, he heard it, turned around, saw them, realized what was happening and dropped dead.