Odd Job said:
JohnKSa, do you have any academic stake or commercial interest or association with the Courtneys or their "Ballistics testing Group?"
Just curious.
None whatsoever.
Odd Job said:
I just don't understand his subscription to some of the elements of Courtney's research.
I find it interesting for the following several reasons:
It explains observed results that other theories don't. For example, it explains why CNS trauma (instant drop-dead kills) are sometimes observed when animals are shot in the torso and the CNS is not actually hit.
The math is sound and the theory doesn't require that one attempt to discount any well-established aspects of the physics of motion.
The science is sound and doesn't require that one attempt to discount and/or dismiss easily measured and verifiable terminal ballistic effects.
As pointed out below, while he has taken a lot of abuse for his results, no one (even from among those who clearly have the motive and means to do so) seems willing to simply repeat his experiments to prove that he's wrong.
Because unlike many other ballistics researchers, he seems much more concerned with learning about ballistics than about attacking those with differing views.
And finally, it's not so much that I "subscribe" to the theory as much as it is that I occasionally object to the way someone tries to attack it. For example, I've not seen anything that suggests Courtney is advocating shallow penetration or fragmenting bullets. In fact, several folks have quoted from his works on this thread indicating that he endorses the FBI minimum penetration. Here's another quote from one of his papers.
... Bullet selection criteria should first determine the required penetration depth for the given risk assessment and application, and only use pressure wave magnitude as a selection criterion for bullets that meet a minimum penetration requirement.
Reliable expansion, penetration, feeding, and functioning are all important aspects of load testing and selection. We do not advocate abandoning long-held aspects of the load testing and selection process, but it seems prudent to consider the pressure wave magnitude ... along with other factors.
You'd think that a statement that unequivocal and that clear would put an end to allegations about his recommendation of shallow penetration and fragmenting bullets, but it doesn't seem to matter much.
What really struck me initially when I first became aware of Courtney's work was that in spite of the fact that his results were plainly not intended to usurp or replace any existing selection criteria but only add to the collective knowledge of the terminal ballistics community, he was instantly attacked for intruding onto what certain members of the community apparently perceived as their turf. That was a most unscientific response, and I don't like to see unscientific responses. Science is about expanding knowledge, not about trying to discredit those who are perceived as a possible threat regardless of the value of their contributions.
481 said:
What constitues "debunking" in one's opinion is "attacking" in another's.
Not at all. Attacking is attacking and debunking is debunking. If the Courtney's detractors wanted to actually debunk his results, all they have to do is repeat his experiments and then show that their results contradict his. Except of course that tactic would be highly undesirable if the detractors had good reason to believe the results wouldn't be contradictory. Which is, in my opinion, precisely why the "official response" has been limited to verbal attacks.
481 said:
As for the lack of replication of such haphazard procedure why would anyone want to waste their time chasing unreproducible effects produced by such shoddy work and technique?
No, that's not how it works, and that's the beauty of science. 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.
Most importantly, it prevents science from deteriorating to rhetoric and a war of words. There's no need to create and publish scathing criticisms, you simply repeat the experiment and demonstrate that the results aren't the same.
481 said:
It speaks to their intellect that Fackler, Roberts, Williams, MacPherson, et. al. were not gullible enough to duplicate such dubious methodology.
Again, that's not how science works. If a scientist questions another results, he attempts to duplicate them. If he can't duplicate them using the published methodology then he publishes his results and methodology and things progress from there. It works very well.
it speaks volumes when one scientist badmouths another, lending some measure of credence to the results by focusing his attention on them, but then makes no attempt whatsoever to duplicate his experimental results.
481 said:
Your question assumes that his source's silence regarding his misapplication of their work implies a tacit approval of his disingenuous behavior.
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 doesn't mean that it hasn't, but one would think that if such evidence existed it would be rapidly seized upon and publicized by Courtney's many detractors.
2zulu1 said:
is because you know the Courtneys!
I haven't met the Courtneys. I got that information from his curriculum vitae--from the link you quoted in my response. That's also where I got the information about their current work for the USAF. Everything I know about the Courtney's I've found on the internet, either on firearm forums or by using internet search.
Besides, if you can't answer my arguments or come up with arguments I can't answer then it doesn't really matter who you know or who I know. These forums are a great equalizer. Because you can't show me your credentials and I can't show you mine, 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.