Craig,

Your on the man's ignore list. Have you not wonderd why he does not answer ?

 

CM, having implemented the ignore feature, posts in this thread have become logical, enjoyable and much faster to read through. :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:

When ya dump 3 people it surely does ! :supergrin:


Later amigo !




CM

 

Craig,

Your on the man's ignore list. Have you not wonderd why he does not answer ?


You just made mine as well along with 3 others I added. First time sense 2002 I have ever done this.



:wavey:




Adios






CM

CM, having implemented the ignore feature, posts in this thread have become logical, enjoyable and much faster to read through. :thumbsup:

Bob :cowboy:

 

I was not addressing you. :shame:

Once again, there is a reason that I never participate with you in any thread and after the following paragraph in which I explain why (again), I have no interest in debating anything with you since even the simplest things seem to exceed your severely limited grasp. My religion is absolutely none of your business and has no bearing whatsoever upon the topic at hand.

Your simplistic desire to assign mystical qualities to what bullets do when they strike a body, or anything else, makes it clear that you lack the capacity to discern reality from fantasy and I have no desire to waste a single moment of my time debating with you, your own special brand of lunacy. It appears that several others here have drawn the same conclusion regarding your behavior and chosen to act similarly where you are involved.





.

As I've shown, the theory of BPW sin't a mystical quality.

I've only shown the facts, nothing related to fantasy there.

Posting the facts leaves me far from being related to lunacy.

Oh, and I agree, I never have and never will care what religion you do practice if any.

Have a Great Day :wavey:

 

What is the trauma surgeon's name?

Further, the amplitude of remote pressure has been measured at distant locations from bullet impact with a high speed pressure transducer...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.1443.pdf

"The pressure levels that produce mild to
moderate TBI occurred in pigs and dogs that
were shot in the thigh with high-energy
projectiles. [17-19] Suneson et al. implanted
high-frequency pressure transducers in the
abdomen, neck, and brain of the test animals to
measure pressures generated by distant missile
impact at these locations. [18, Fig. 1] Transient
pressure levels in the 18-45 psi range were
transmitted to the brain. These pressures are
comparable to pressures that produced
incapacitation and long-term neural damage in
LFP experiments."

Anything else?

Craig,

Your on the man's ignore list. Have you not wonderd why he does not answer ?


You just made mine as well along with 3 others I added. First time sense 2002 I have ever done this.



:wavey:




Adios






CM

 

Here are some excerpts from a trauma surgeon...

Somehow, proponents of BPW need to establish the amplitude of a remote pressure spike that lasts only <.0002 second and still cause incapacitation through whatever mechanism.

Bob :cowboy:

What is the trauma surgeon's name?

Further, the amplitude of remote pressure has been measured at distant locations from bullet impact with a high speed pressure transducer...
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.1443.pdf

"The pressure levels that produce mild to
moderate TBI occurred in pigs and dogs that
were shot in the thigh with high-energy
projectiles. [17-19] Suneson et al. implanted
high-frequency pressure transducers in the
abdomen, neck, and brain of the test animals to
measure pressures generated by distant missile
impact at these locations. [18, Fig. 1] Transient
pressure levels in the 18-45 psi range were
transmitted to the brain. These pressures are
comparable to pressures that produced
incapacitation and long-term neural damage in
LFP experiments."

Anything else?

 

So that's your arguement against Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW now?

It's been common knowledge since Dr. Courtney first brought his studyies to light that the mechanism toward quicker incapacitation times was always unsubstanciated speculation. I never was a secret, though now you act as if it was. Weird. Guess you never read the study material either.

Studies outside of Dr. Courtney's work show BPW from a bullet wound some distance from the brain making it to the brain. Physical damage has even been shown. Therefore it's not much of a strech to come up with the idea that that could be the mechanism in play in the form of mild to moderate traumatic brain injury.

Either way, around relatively specific parameters it's been made apparent that higher energy rounds incapacitate more quickly than those with less. No study exists that renders any other opinion worthy of consideration.

The equation for peak BPW is completely aside from the mechanism in the body that makes it work. On what grounds is it realistic to link how the equation is formulated with the mechanism itself? That doesn't make sense.

That's not true. Please name 10 scientists who back up this notion. 10 isn't too many for you, is it? I mean, if they are so conclusively correct saying Dr. Courtney is wrong, I would think 10 would be pretty easy to come up with. Would you like for me to list 10 who's work correlates perfectly with Dr. Courtney's work? It would be easy if you like.

So the guy found Jesus. What are you, an atheist, that is would upset you so?

There was nothing invalid or unreliable to any study Dr. Courtney did. With the bucket of water work, Dr. Courtney simply showed that a bullet need not enter the subject to incapacitate or kill, not to mention showing 3 different levels of energy with the rounds he chose for the test. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

Now that's a theory with some serious holes in it.

I was not addressing you. :shame:

Once again, there is a reason that I never participate with you in any thread and after the following paragraph in which I explain why (again), I have no interest in debating anything with you since even the simplest things seem to exceed your severely limited grasp. My religion is absolutely none of your business and has no bearing whatsoever upon the topic at hand.

Your simplistic desire to assign mystical qualities to what bullets do when they strike a body, or anything else, makes it clear that you lack the capacity to discern reality from fantasy and I have no desire to waste a single moment of my time debating with you, your own special brand of lunacy. It appears that several others here have drawn the same conclusion regarding your behavior and chosen to act similarly where you are involved.





.

 

My problem with their work and EM's website is they are so in love with corBon DPX that you might as well not carry a gun if you can't load it with DPX.

Not knocking DPX, not at all, but the way they drool over it one would think they have stock in the company.

This.

 

I strongly believe in the venturi effect. Probably only because I've seen it in ventilating buildings(firefighting). As a medic also, I could see this in my mind effecting the human body. I'm obviously not an expert though, so this is just my 2 cents...and due to inflation my 2 cents isn't even worth that much!

As you wrote, the venturi effect is present during a number of different events, such as purging moisture from air conditioning systems, carburetion and capillaries in our own blood system.

Here are some excerpts from a trauma surgeon presenting gun shot research to a group of his peers at Baylor University's College of Medicine in February, 2004.

The objectives for today's talk are to describe an array of weapons and ammunition which are commonly seen in gunshot wound injuries, as well as to describe the ballistics of projectiles from the time the trigger is pulled to the time the target is struck. I will also describe typical characteristics of entry and exit wounds, as well as describing the tissue effects of various penetrating projectiles.

The context of the following quote refers to a temporary cavity comparison of a .30 cal bullet fired into gel, first pic 1,000fps, second pic 2800fps . . . and it references the venturi effect caused by the projectile;

The damage which is created by a projectile is caused by three different mechanisms. The first is laceration and crushing which is the sole method by which low-velocity handguns cause damage to tissue. Higher velocity weapons will stretch the tissue in the wake of the bullet, forming what is called a temporary cavity as well as the smaller permanent cavity as can be seen in the next couple of slides. A controversial subject is that of shock waves which are present and travel ahead of the bullet which last a few microseconds. It was once theorized that these shock waves could cause damage to the tissues; however, this has been refuted in recent studies. The temporary cavity is created by stretching forces in a vacuum in the wake of a bullet, and the volume of this cavity is proportional to the energy which is transferred, with a maximum diameter being measured at 10 to 40 times the bullet diameter. This temporary cavity will actually collapse and reform repeatedly with a diminishing amplitude until it settles down to what will be the permanent cavity. This entire process only lasts one to five milliseconds . . .

. . . The permanent cavity is the visible track of the bullet through the tissue. It is primarily made up of tissue which is crushed by direct contact with the bullet, and the diameter of the permanent cavity is variable depending on the behavior of the bullet as well as the anatomic characteristics of the tissues traversed.

Somehow, proponents of BPW need to establish the amplitude of a remote pressure spike that lasts only <.0002 second and still cause incapacitation through whatever mechanism.

Bob :cowboy:

 

I strongly believe in the venturi effect. Probably only because I've seen it in ventilating buildings(firefighting). As a medic also, I could see this in my mind effecting the human body. I'm obviously not an expert though, so this is just my 2 cents...and due to inflation my 2 cents isn't even worth that much!

I do, but not to the extent I'm interested in using it against BGs. The reason being is that for it to work in the way we're talking about it here, the bullet has to make two holes. One going in and one exiting.

I prefer lighter higher energy rounds that use more or all of their energy destroying the insides of the BG, while at the same time promoting a higher peak ballistic pressure wave. Kind of like the 135gr 40S&W load that Mas Ayoob speaks so highly of from the standpoint it creates a larger permanent wound cavity than what he's witness from many other common loads in various calibers.

Now on critters that would bite back and don't carry firearms, then the venturi effect all the way as in that situation I'll take the extra penetration depth, but still depending to some extent on the actual critter in question. Bears, yeah! Coyotes, no.

 

I strongly believe in the venturi effect. Probably only because I've seen it in ventilating buildings(firefighting). As a medic also, I could see this in my mind effecting the human body. I'm obviously not an expert though, so this is just my 2 cents...and due to inflation my 2 cents isn't even worth that much!

 

And of course, Bob, your vast intelligence showed itself a few years back when you tried convincing people that the .357 magnum was "sucking" the life outta a victim in a murder case you were privy to because there was spray "x" amount of feet beyond the body. The , I guess, venturi effect was what you thought was the "key" to all this stopping power debate... because the sucking action or whatever crazy mess you drummed up, would add to the terminal performance when the bullet passed through a perp. That was a tsunami of validity alright. More like it validates your need for meds. You've had rediculous theories without anything to back it up but a simpleton's observation on scene yet you mock Courtney.:upeyes:

I also seem to recall that Bob used that SINGLE incident to substanciate all he believed against BPW. And then, yes, the venturi effect was what Bob has dwelled on for some time now. I'm of the opinion that something is definately lacking with that theory. Not to mention it takes a high energy round to create the effect which works very well in conjuction with Dr. Courtney's findings that higher energy round incapacitate quicker, which Bob claims to be against. Hmmmm.:headscratch:

A sample size of 1 to prove a theory backed up by MDs shedding positive light on Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW. Interesting.

 

You'll note that you have yet to get an actual answer to the questions you've both posed other than the sidestepping and tap dancing that we've already seen so much of.

That is because there is no answer.

It has already been admitted that neither Courtney himself nor members posting in support of Courtney's unsubstantiated speculation (it does not even rise to the level of a theory since it languishes in its own nonsense like a pig in its own waste) can explain how, when or even if his speculation works.

So that's your arguement against Dr. Courtney's theory of BPW now?

It's been common knowledge since Dr. Courtney first brought his studyies to light that the mechanism toward quicker incapacitation times was always unsubstanciated speculation. I never was a secret, though now you act as if it was. Weird. Guess you never read the study material either.

Studies outside of Dr. Courtney's work show BPW from a bullet wound some distance from the brain making it to the brain. Physical damage has even been shown. Therefore it's not much of a strech to come up with the idea that that could be the mechanism in play in the form of mild to moderate traumatic brain injury.

Either way, around relatively specific parameters it's been made apparent that higher energy rounds incapacitate more quickly than those with less. No study exists that renders any other opinion worthy of consideration.

This admission alone also renders completely invalid, and equally nonsensical, any equations claimed to represent quantitatively or qualitatively Courtney's wild claims and speculation since Courtney himself(!) admits that even he cannot explain the mechanism by which his wild claims operate which means that his equations are COMPLETELY BOGUS AND UTTER FALSIFICATIONS because there is no proof to confirm or even explain them and the mechanism(s)(?) that they are alleged to represent.

The equation for peak BPW is completely aside from the mechanism in the body that makes it work. On what grounds is it realistic to link how the equation is formulated with the mechanism itself? That doesn't make sense.

The scientific community has also ruled on this in light of the fact that Courtney has been caught lying on numerous occasions over the course of several years by presenting as proof of his speculation (that he admits not understanding), papers that have nothing to do at all with his speculations.

That's not true. Please name 10 scientists who back up this notion. 10 isn't too many for you, is it? I mean, if they are so conclusively correct saying Dr. Courtney is wrong, I would think 10 would be pretty easy to come up with. Would you like for me to list 10 who's work correlates perfectly with Dr. Courtney's work? It would be easy if you like.

Add to this his questionable mental stability (see the links provided where he claims to be a prophet and claims that God told him that he'd know his future wife to be by the fact that she'd be wearing pink tennis shoes) and it becomes all too apparent what Courtney is.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15

So the guy found Jesus. What are you, an atheist, that is would upset you so?

Those dull enough to accept Courtney's speculation upon his word alone and without any scientifically valid or reliable research methodology (shootin' critters immersed in a bucket of water in the back of a barn doesn't count) cannot prove or disprove anything because they've already admitted that Courtney's speculation cannot be explained, even by Courtney.

There was nothing invalid or unreliable to any study Dr. Courtney did. With the bucket of water work, Dr. Courtney simply showed that a bullet need not enter the subject to incapacitate or kill, not to mention showing 3 different levels of energy with the rounds he chose for the test. What's so hard to comprehend about that?

Anyone claiming otherwise is fooling no one but themselves.

Now that's a theory with some serious holes in it.

 

Well Ken, it's like this: Ballistic Pressure Wave is like a tsunami without water. Hope that clarifies any doubts as to its validity.

Bob :cowboy:

Obviously you're being facetious, but it's interesting you'ld comment in such a way, when I haven't, yet you suggest you don't like what I posted which were nothing more than the facts, not to mention links to pertinent data backing up what I've posted. Any chance you could actually argue the facts in an honest manner?

 

Craig :

Your internet junkie experience does not and will not ever supercede
experience in the real world!

It would appear by your way of thinking that that would make you an internet junkie too. Is that how you feel about yourself?

When have I ever discounted real world experience? I haven't. Not sure why you would make such a statement.

Did you ever think that maybe your path in life is that of a corrupt politician who impresses the crowd with their knowledge
and yet when elected seems to know nothing about what he or she would
correct if elected to office?

No. How am I corrupt? Who am I impressing in your view? In terms of what's being posted, it appears a number of you are far from being impressed with me. Or are you impressed with what I've posted and this is your way of showing it?

Bob--Craigs also on my ignore list!

:chatter:

Yeah, that's mature.:upeyes: Don't get me wrong, I don't take issue with it, just saying. By chance, are you only here to gripe, or at some point were you going to jump in to show me where you don't agree with what I've already posted in relation to BPW?

Take Care:wavey:

 

I'm tired of your anties: rants, how hypocritical of you . . . you have neither scientific nor street experiences,yet you share lots of egotistical opinions.

Welcome to the ignore feature.

Bob :cowboy:

By that way of thinking, no one outside of scientists or people who have shot someone and watched the results of the bullet to the wounded person, would have any right to comment in relation to any wounding effect of a bullet in any fashion. Really? I disagree and know that I'm far from being alone on that notion.

If it's hypocritical and egotistical to correct others who have their facts wrong, then I am. Though I don't see it that way based on the facts.

How does having street experience help anyone who's only ever shot one or two people in their whole career? Kind of a small data set, don't you think? Any further data would have to come from fellow coworkers to build on that data set which is outside their own experience anyway. And that's beside the fact that many departments won't share their shooting results with other departments.

Do you discount hunting as experience? I certainly would disagree with you on that if it's the case.

If this is how you intend to carry on, then being on your ignore list certainly won't hurt my feelings.

Have a great day or evening as the case may be.:wavey:

 

Actually you got the facts wrong and out of context, but this is normal for you. You also forgot to mention the conversations with an MD and the forensic software model used.

Bye :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:

Well go back and find your star posts (if they are still available on here) and repost, we'll see how credible your imposed theory sounds. Annnd I don't care about the "MD's", but we can discuss what they told you about your crazy theory too. I'll be waiting. Maybe you and Amy can discuss some pink high-tops, you guys seem to have some "crazy" things in common.:rofl:

 

And of course, Bob, your vast intelligence showed itself a few years back when you tried convincing people that the .357 magnum was "sucking" the life outta a victim in a murder case you were privy to because there was spray "x" amount of feet beyond the body. The , I guess, venturi effect was what you thought was the "key" to all this stopping power debate... because the sucking action or whatever crazy mess you drummed up, would add to the terminal performance when the bullet passed through a perp. That was a tsunami of validity alright. More like it validates your need for meds. You've had rediculous theories without anything to back it up but a simpleton's observation on scene yet you mock Courtney.:upeyes:

Actually you got the facts wrong and out of context, but this is normal for you. You also forgot to mention the conversations with an MD and the forensic software model used.

Bye :wavey:

Bob :cowboy:

 

Well Ken, it's like this: Ballistic Pressure Wave is like a tsunami without water. Hope that clarifies any doubts as to its validity.

Bob :cowboy:

And of course, Bob, your vast intelligence showed itself a few years back when you tried convincing people that the .357 magnum was "sucking" the life outta a victim in a murder case you were privy to because there was spray "x" amount of feet beyond the body. The , I guess, venturi effect was what you thought was the "key" to all this stopping power debate... because the sucking action or whatever crazy mess you drummed up, would add to the terminal performance when the bullet passed through a perp. That was a tsunami of validity alright. More like it validates your need for meds. You've had rediculous theories without anything to back it up but a simpleton's observation on scene yet you mock Courtney.:upeyes:

 

Craig :

Your internet junkie experience does not and will not ever supercede
experience in the real world! Did you ever think that maybe your path in life is that of a corrupt politician who impresses the crowd with their knowledge
and yet when elected seems to know nothing about what he or she would
correct if elected to office?

Bob--Craigs also on my ignore list!

:chatter:

 

I just think its interesting that some people are science people and some people are street people. I made the point earlier that the "street" has not adopted the Courtney model. As a general rule, the FBI isn't real happy when their people get killed. Look what they did after Miami in 1986. I think there are some pretty smart people there too. The street has not adopted the Courtney model. If you look around, you will see articles written by Mas Ayoob talking about the .357 mag and its stopping power where he said the 9mm 124+p did just as good a job and that has 400 fpe. It has been posted earlier in this thread that you need 500 fpe I believe to get this effect.

As for the Courtney model, here is a quote from a post above
"Just to reiterate, Dr. Courtney NEVER claimed he knew what the mechanism at work is/was. Nor did he ever attempt to figure it out. What he did do was GENERALLY suspect it's probably in some way related to the Central Nervous System. And of course over time (the past few years) there has been much speculation."

No wonder nobody has adopted the theory. The mechanism at work isn't known and his whole theory is a general suspicion it is probably related to the CNS...and there has been much speculation. Not enough for me. Go for it if you want. I think that all of the things seen in hunting and in LEO shootings that have been examined are sufficiently explained using the current McPherson analysis. YMMV.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how this BPW gets transmitted through bone.

Aw, heck. I gotta get back in on this. :upeyes:

Ken, Bob,

You'll note that you have yet to get an actual answer to the questions you've both posed other than the sidestepping and tap dancing that we've already seen so much of.

That is because there is no answer.

Dr Courtney's research, credibility, validity and mental stability have met with several and numerous challenges. Among them...

Dr Courtney has conducted invalid and unreliable experiments claiming that they support his theories.

DrJSW wrote regarding Dr Courtney's deer shooting studies:

"Your deer incapacitation study is, methodologically and physiologically flawed beyond description and in the real world, irrelevant. If you find the mathematics interesting, more power to you; but in terms of applicability to living physiological systems of any species, no conclusions can be drawn from your method and results.

Courtney has been caught perpetuating these lies on numerous occasions over the course of several years by presenting as proof of his speculation (that he admits not understanding) papers that in reality, have nothing to do at all with his speculations despite being "called out" for his intellectual dishonesty yet he persists in this proven disingenuous behavior.

DrJSW writes:

"I have been far too busy to do a detailed critique of the inferences and conclusions you have published based on the work of Gorannson and Suneson, but I have read your papers as well as having reviewed both Gorannson and Suneson's work. Not only have I reviewed them myself, but I have also reviewed them with other persons with extensive background in physiological research, both in vivo and in vitro.
Neither I nor anyone I have reviewed these papers with is particularly impressed with the applicability of these studies to the physiology of human GSW's. The papers published by Wong's group which you also rely on do NOT support the assertions you have ascribed to them, and upon which you based the hypothesis upon which you based your research questions."
Dr Courtney also claimed the existence of shell-shock during WWI as evidence of his ballistic pressure wave theory, despite the fact that many of the people who suffered from "shell shock" aka "combat fatigue", had not been shot by anything or wounded, but were psychologically traumatized. This included people like medical personal who had no exposure to gunfire or shelling but were emotionally devastated from treating wounded and dead.

It has also been admitted that neither Courtney himself nor the members posting in support of Courtney's unsubstantiated speculation (it does not even rise to the level of a theory since it languishes in its own nonsense like a pig in its own waste) can explain how, when or even the mechanism by which his speculative claims work.

Just to reiterate, Dr. Courtney NEVER claimed he knew what the mechanism at work is/was. Nor did he ever attempt to figure it out. What he did do was GENERALLY suspect it's probably in some way related to the Central Nervous System. And of course over time (the past few years) there has been much speculation.

This admission alone renders completely invalid, and equally nonsensical, any equations claimed to represent quantitatively or qualitatively Courtney's wild claims and speculation since Courtney himself(!) admits that even he cannot explain the mechanism by which his wild claims operate which means that his equations are COMPLETELY BOGUS AND UTTER FALSIFICATIONS because there is no proof to confirm or even explain them and the mechanism(s)(?) that they are alleged to represent.

Courtney has recently resorted to the desperate measure of "self-publishing" his questionable assertions on Wikipedia in his quest for validation even though such a course of action will virtually guarantee the scientific community&#8217;s dismissal of his ridiculous claims once and for all if that hasn't happened already. He is already widely regarded as a laughing-stock in the ballistic research community.

Adding to his "credentials" is the fact that he also taught remedial mathematics courses at a Cleveland area community college. Dr Courtney's dubious "theorizing" is hardly worthy of serious consideration and the scientific community has discarded his "work" for the rubbish that it so clearly is.

Add to this his questionable mental stability (see the links provided where he claims to be a prophet and claims that God told him that he'd know his future &#8220;wife to be&#8221; by the fact that she would be wearing pink &#8220;tassled&#8221; tennis shoes) and it becomes all too apparent what Courtney is.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney

Courtney also believes that he is a Prophet sent by God and writes in the following link: "I am a prophet sent by God to declare the destruction of the United States because of abortion."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15

In any event, those dull enough to accept Courtney's ridiculous guesswork upon his word alone and without any scientifically valid or reliable research methodology to support it (and shootin' critters immersed in a bucket of water in the back of a barn doesn't count) cannot prove or disprove anything they claim because they've already admitted that Courtney's claims cannot be explained, even by Courtney himself.

Anyone stating otherwise is fooling no one but themselves.

 

I just think its interesting that some people are science people and some people are street people. I made the point earlier that the "street" has not adopted the Courtney model. As a general rule, the FBI isn't real happy when their people get killed. Look what they did after Miami in 1986. I think there are some pretty smart people there too. The street has not adopted the Courtney model. If you look around, you will see articles written by Mas Ayoob talking about the .357 mag and its stopping power where he said the 9mm 124+p did just as good a job and that has 400 fpe. It has been posted earlier in this thread that you need 500 fpe I believe to get this effect.

As for the Courtney model, here is a quote from a post above
"Just to reiterate, Dr. Courtney NEVER claimed he knew what the mechanism at work is/was. Nor did he ever attempt to figure it out. What he did do was GENERALLY suspect it's probably in some way related to the Central Nervous System. And of course over time (the past few years) there has been much speculation."

No wonder nobody has adopted the theory. The mechanism at work isn't known and his whole theory is a general suspicion it is probably related to the CNS...and there has been much speculation. Not enough for me. Go for it if you want. I think that all of the things seen in hunting and in LEO shootings that have been examined are sufficiently explained using the current McPherson analysis. YMMV.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how this BPW gets transmitted through bone.

Well Ken, it's like this: Ballistic Pressure Wave is like a tsunami without water. Hope that clarifies any doubts as to its validity.

Bob :cowboy:

 

You seriously believe that overall? It's not true. Most of us look at both, in other words all the data (in this case "scientific" and "street results") collectively, and then make a decision or at least a theory. Yes, there are those that can only view almost anything one sidedly, but they are definately the minority.


DO WHAT?!? Seriously, you need to take a break from thinking and later collect your thoughts and start back at square one.

How do you explain any LE or Gov't Agency using any form of any of the following: any +P round, any +P+ round, 357 SIG, 135gr 40S&W (which Mas Ayoob is greatly in favor of)...let alone the 127gr +P+ by Winchester that Winchester says has a serious cult following among LE...

You think that reasoning is limited to more penetration depth or something?!? They can choose 147gr standard pressure 9mm loads and get all the penetration they want without going to anything else I listed above! That would be ridiculous to assume if that's what you're assuming.


Yeah, they went with 10mm Auto. What don't you get? Yeah, there's alot more to it than that, and since they were going to choose something besides 9mm anyway, it could have ended up being 45 Auto which was there 2nd choice after the 10mm round. 40 S&W didn't even exist yet, nor did 357 SIG. And true, they never did go with full power 10mm loads, but clearly, no matter how you slice it, they did, and were going to no matter what, go with a larger caliber better penetrating higher energy round. It certainly wasn't the other way around as you're suggesting!


And what 357 Mag round specifically was being compared? And out of what platform? 110gr? 125gr? 158gr? RN lead? Semi-Jacketed? Gold Dot? You're going to have to look at all the facts before you're statement above means anything other than a grain of salt.

And what do you mean you "believe" 500 ft-lbs are NEEDED to get any effect from BPW??? Are you serious? If you don't know how screwed up on that alone you are, then you definately need to go back and read in Dr. Courtney's paper where he explained it! Because if you don't clearly understand that part of it, then you have no business talking about anything BPW related, and from that it's becoming very obvious why you're so confused.

Go here - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf
And just so you can stay focused long enough, go to page 5 and read the last paragraph. After that, start over at the beginning, so you can actually have a clue what some of the rest of us are talking about.


Ken, SLOW DOWN. You talk about theory as if it's equal to proof of something. IT'S NOT. Nor did anyone claim it to be. You've listened to way to much BS from others not having a clue what they're talking about. Go read the frickin papers for yourself so you can make an honest educated decision for yourself. My God, the way you're bringing stuff up in an effort to suggest the theory holds no water is so far from fact it's rediculous. You think you know the basics to the theory and all that surrounds it, but you haven't a clue. You shouldn't be making statements. You should be asking questions and stop pretending you know what you don't and are only assuming.


It's no wonder you'ld think that.


WHY!!!? Because once you understand that, then the whole theory will fall into place for you? Good grief.


All in all above, the way you're going through this in your mind, if there isn't as easy a solution as 2+2=4, then you're simply not going to go along with it anyway. I'm beginning to wonder why you even see fit to post. You sit back acting like you have an understanding of what's being discussed, when all you have are a few tiny pieces to a MUCH larger puzzle, taking stuff completely out of context, and then you wonder this and that ignorantly. Seriously, clear your mind, and come back to it later and read the link I posted for you.

I'm tired of your anties: rants, how hypocritical of you . . . you have neither scientific nor street experiences, yet you share lots of egotistical opinions.

Welcome to the ignore feature.

Bob :cowboy:

 

I just think its interesting that some people are science people and some people are street people.

You seriously believe that overall? It's not true. Most of us look at both, in other words all the data (in this case "scientific" and "street results") collectively, and then make a decision or at least a theory. Yes, there are those that can only view almost anything one sidedly, but they are definately the minority.

I made the point earlier that the "street" has not adopted the Courtney model.

DO WHAT?!? Seriously, you need to take a break from thinking and later collect your thoughts and start back at square one.

How do you explain any LE or Gov't Agency using any form of any of the following: any +P round, any +P+ round, 357 SIG, 135gr 40S&W (which Mas Ayoob is greatly in favor of)...let alone the 127gr +P+ by Winchester that Winchester says has a serious cult following among LE...

You think that reasoning is limited to more penetration depth or something?!? They can choose 147gr standard pressure 9mm loads and get all the penetration they want without going to anything else I listed above! That would be ridiculous to assume if that's what you're assuming.

As a general rule, the FBI isn't real happy when their people get killed. Look what they did after Miami in 1986. I think there are some pretty smart people there too. The street has not adopted the Courtney model.

Yeah, they went with 10mm Auto. What don't you get? Yeah, there's alot more to it than that, and since they were going to choose something besides 9mm anyway, it could have ended up being 45 Auto which was there 2nd choice after the 10mm round. 40 S&W didn't even exist yet, nor did 357 SIG. And true, they never did go with full power 10mm loads, but clearly, no matter how you slice it, they did, and were going to no matter what, go with a larger caliber better penetrating higher energy round. It certainly wasn't the other way around as you're suggesting!

If you look around, you will see articles written by Mas Ayoob talking about the .357 mag and its stopping power where he said the 9mm 124+p did just as good a job and that has 400 fpe. It has been posted earlier in this thread that you need 500 fpe I believe to get this effect.

And what 357 Mag round specifically was being compared? And out of what platform? 110gr? 125gr? 158gr? RN lead? Semi-Jacketed? Gold Dot? You're going to have to look at all the facts before you're statement above means anything other than a grain of salt.

And what do you mean you "believe" 500 ft-lbs are NEEDED to get any effect from BPW??? Are you serious? If you don't know how screwed up on that alone you are, then you definately need to go back and read in Dr. Courtney's paper where he explained it! Because if you don't clearly understand that part of it, then you have no business talking about anything BPW related, and from that it's becoming very obvious why you're so confused.

Go here - http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3053.pdf
And just so you can stay focused long enough, go to page 5 and read the last paragraph. After that, start over at the beginning, so you can actually have a clue what some of the rest of us are talking about.

As for the Courtney model, here is a quote from a post above
"Just to reiterate, Dr. Courtney NEVER claimed he knew what the mechanism at work is/was. Nor did he ever attempt to figure it out. What he did do was GENERALLY suspect it's probably in some way related to the Central Nervous System. And of course over time (the past few years) there has been much speculation."

No wonder nobody has adopted the theory. The mechanism at work isn't known and his whole theory is a general suspicion it is probably related to the CNS...and there has been much speculation.

Ken, SLOW DOWN. You talk about theory as if it's equal to proof of something. IT'S NOT. Nor did anyone claim it to be. You've listened to way to much BS from others not having a clue what they're talking about. Go read the frickin papers for yourself so you can make an honest educated decision for yourself. My God, the way you're bringing stuff up in an effort to suggest the theory holds no water is so far from fact it's rediculous. You think you know the basics to the theory and all that surrounds it, but you haven't a clue. You shouldn't be making statements. You should be asking questions and stop pretending you know what you don't and are only assuming.

Not enough for me. Go for it if you want. I think that all of the things seen in hunting and in LEO shootings that have been examined are sufficiently explained using the current McPherson analysis. YMMV.

It's no wonder you'ld think that.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how this BPW gets transmitted through bone.

WHY!!!? Because once you understand that, then the whole theory will fall into place for you? Good grief.


All in all above, the way you're going through this in your mind, if there isn't as easy a solution as 2+2=4, then you're simply not going to go along with it anyway. I'm beginning to wonder why you even see fit to post. You sit back acting like you have an understanding of what's being discussed, when all you have are a few tiny pieces to a MUCH larger puzzle, taking stuff completely out of context, and then you wonder this and that ignorantly. Seriously, clear your mind, and come back to it later and read the link I posted for you.

 

I just think its interesting that some people are science people and some people are street people. I made the point earlier that the "street" has not adopted the Courtney model. As a general rule, the FBI isn't real happy when their people get killed. Look what they did after Miami in 1986. I think there are some pretty smart people there too. The street has not adopted the Courtney model. If you look around, you will see articles written by Mas Ayoob talking about the .357 mag and its stopping power where he said the 9mm 124+p did just as good a job and that has 400 fpe. It has been posted earlier in this thread that you need 500 fpe I believe to get this effect.

As for the Courtney model, here is a quote from a post above
"Just to reiterate, Dr. Courtney NEVER claimed he knew what the mechanism at work is/was. Nor did he ever attempt to figure it out. What he did do was GENERALLY suspect it's probably in some way related to the Central Nervous System. And of course over time (the past few years) there has been much speculation."

No wonder nobody has adopted the theory. The mechanism at work isn't known and his whole theory is a general suspicion it is probably related to the CNS...and there has been much speculation. Not enough for me. Go for it if you want. I think that all of the things seen in hunting and in LEO shootings that have been examined are sufficiently explained using the current McPherson analysis. YMMV.

I am still waiting for an explanation of how this BPW gets transmitted through bone.