View Full Version : Michael Courtney (I mean Pasteur) is now peddling his snake oil . . .
. . . to the gullible at Glock Talk.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13946168&posted=1#post13946168
He has been doing his schtick over there for years; I am afraid the poor signal to noise ratio over at GT has frequently caused it to become a waste of valuable time to peruse...
Anybody going to GlockTalk for serious info on wound ballistics is, well, wasting his time. If Courtney has an outlet on the web, then GlockTalk is probably best.
Anybody going to GlockTalk for serious info on wound ballistics is, well, wasting his time. If Courtney has an outlet on the web, then GlockTalk is probably best.
I just came across the Glock Talk website not too long ago and it was quite by accident actually. I haven't spent much time there, but there does seem to be a lot of misinformation taken as fact there. Oh well . . .
He says he has proof now, confirmed in human autopsy cases:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479852
Speaking of autopsies, I found some info on another forum that shows links to Co urtney's prior posts that indicates he believes that that God chose to speak to him about marrying a woman with pink-high top sneakers, that God told him to accept a position at MIT.
Below is an archived message that the post linked to. It starts off as a post by someone else that is quoting a post made by Michael Courtney along with headers and path:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney
He also predicted in another post linked to the message that the "United States will cease to be governed as set forth in the Constitution" (sadly, he may be onto something there . . .) and that a Dragon desend on American would rip open pregnant women's bellies:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15
There was a time....
A time when the fella was so in need of validation that he hit virtually every single gunboard on the web. Even gunboards dedicated to states he is 1,500+ miles from. I guess GT is the largest of all the brown noser boards he has registered with, and thus will be his "home".
"Sometimes, you just have to ask 'what the ****?'."
He says he has proof now, confirmed in human autopsy cases:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479852
Well, let him get published in a peer-reviewed journal and actually PROVE his theory.
Let's not count the self-publishing he's been doing where they were reviewed by his wife. ;)
I'm just curious if this purported "Ballistic Pressure Wave Theory" works on wild animals such as bears as well as it works on the study's Czechoslovakians?
If so, it should put all the endless internet forum questions about what pistol to carry for bear protection to bed. If the truth be told and it works on bears, you only need shoot the bear in the chest with a 9mm and it will shut down the bear's brain with hydrostatic shock. :rolleyes:
...Pasteur forgot to mention that in the BPW theory the brain injury from BPW is directly linked to the short time incapacitation effects on living beings...that's the very important thing that the persons who wrote such theory are called to demonstrate....such theory is very old now....lot of years passed....the list of cited studies, mostly about TBI by other researchers, is very long now....but I am not able to find a single study by such theorists capable to provide scientifical evidence about their most important statement....the only one we are really interested....
...I took a first look at the czech document...the MD analyzed only brains of people shot by a single bullet in the chest, where there wasn't any impact with the spine in order to eliminate the possible movement transmitted by the skeletal system, that died in very short time after the hit, that did not have any impact on falling with their heads or did not have any resuscitation attempt after being hit...I wasn't able to find anything about the short term incapacitation effects...but I need to find czech colleagues to be more accurate...it seems that the MD is very interested about possibles long term brain maladies because such bleedings...
...after that it's not clear to me if with the term "shock wave" the author refers to the wave due to the impact of the bullet on the target(..he wrote about "..a shock wave..")....to the stress waves originating by the bullet's penetration....or the pressure waves from the temporary cavitation fenomena....
...I don't know if the BPW theory works with wild and large beasts like bears....but it seems that it did't work with less wild and much smaller pigs....do you see any BPW "lightning like" incapacitation watching this movie?
http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-lemasPigs.asp
...to fill such discrepancy I have my own theory...maybe the BPWs travel at extremely reduced velocities in pig's soft tissues:D
All the best
Andrea
P.S.: as usual...please, excuse me for my bad english.
Anybody going to GlockTalk for serious info on wound ballistics is, well, wasting his time. If Courtney has an outlet on the web, then GlockTalk is probably best.
Anyone going to GT for anything, period, other than treatment for their low blood pressure or for entertainment, is probably wasting time.
That website, like many others, had a period years ago where it had a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio to make it a worthwhile resource. Once upon a time - perhaps 5-6 or more years ago and earlier - it had some value as a technical resource on Glock pistols and to get information about vendors. Now it's not much more than an AOL chatroom with pictures of guns and people blathering whatever comes to mind.
Anyone going to GT for anything, period, other than treatment for their low blood pressure or for entertainment, is probably wasting time. That website, like many others, had a period years ago where it had a sufficiently high signal-to-noise ratio to make it a worthwhile resource. Once upon a time - perhaps 5-6 or more years ago and earlier - it had some value as a technical resource on Glock pistols and to get information about vendors. Now it's not much more than an AOL chatroom with pictures of guns and people blathering whatever comes to mind.
I think everyone worth listening to from GT is now here, aren't they?
He says he has proof now, confirmed in human autopsy cases:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=479852
I wonder if the autopsy study cited confirmed that these injuries cause loss of conciousness or motor control more reliably or immediately than a common JHP transecting a major artery (or at all)? "Pasteur" is a sock puppet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet))
"Pasteur" is a sock puppet.
Ad hominem attacks are a common resort when the scientific evidence fails to support the mantra of "sole wounding mechanisms."
Would you say that the forensic pathologists and others who are favorably citing the ballistic pressure work are sockpuppets too?
Fackler [10, 13] however, disputed the shock wave theory, claiming there is no physical evidence to support it, although some support for this theory had already been provided by Harvey [20, 21], Kolsky [31], Suneson et. al. [42, 43], and Crucq [5]. Since that time, other authors also suggest there is increasing evidence to support the theory that shock waves from high velocity bullets can cause tissue related damage and damage to the nervous system. This has been shown in various experiments using simulant models [24, 48]. One of the most interesting is a study by Courtney and Courtney [4] who showed a link between traumatic brain injury and pressure waves originating in the thoracic cavity and extremities.(Historical Overview of Wound Ballistics Research, Forensic Sci Med Pathol (2009) 5:85–89)
The scientific issues are far from settled, but I fail to see how ad hominem attacks are likely to succeed at moving the scientific discussion forward.
For those interested in reading the Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ql74408432j7x568/) issue referenced in the previous post, it's sitting saved in my pdf vault and emailing it wouldn't be a problem. I'll skim it, but probably won't get into much detail on it until after midterms next week.
-B
Ad hominem attacks are a common resort when the scientific evidence fails to support the mantra of "sole wounding mechanisms."
Would you say that the forensic pathologists and others who are favorably citing the ballistic pressure work are sockpuppets too?
The scientific issues are far from settled, but I fail to see how ad hominem attacks are likely to succeed at moving the scientific discussion forward.
Last time I heard, they used their own names in published papers, not a ludicrous pseudonym to peddle their wares and pat themselves on the back on the Internet. Sometimes the hominem is the issue. If it looks like a sock puppet and quacks like a sock puppet...
Adelaide--certainly the hotbed of modern wound ballistic research...
Ad hominem attacks are a common resort when the scientific evidence fails to support the mantra of "sole wounding mechanisms."
Would you say that the forensic pathologists and others who are favorably citing the ballistic pressure work are sockpuppets too?
Quoting yourself to advance your theories is certainly not a way to advance the discussion. :rolleyes:
That is some damn amazing stuff right there..... If I shoot a bad guy with a high velocity, large caliber pistol in the heart, there is a great chance that his brain will explode out his ears! Sweet!
Now, let me give proof to how stupid I am.....
Even if the theory of the hydraulic pressure spike traveling through the blood vessels is true.... there are many, many options for blood to rupture vessels long before this pressure spike made it up and into the brain. Plus there is the fact that blood vessels (as known to me any ways, remember.... I'm just an stupid guy.) are NOT hard/rigid and thus the entire travel path of the pressure spike would effectively expand the vessels relative to the pressure change and reduce the pressure. The further this pressure anomaly traveled, the more ruptures (closest to the bullet entry point would be most likely) and the more expansion of various vessels would facilitating in elliminating any far reaching damage outside of the near/direct area of the original pressure pulse.
I could be wrong, but for some reason I'm personally not wrapping my mind around his.....um... theory.
That is some damn amazing stuff right there..... If I shoot a bad guy with a high velocity, large caliber pistol in the heart, there is a great chance that his brain will explode out his ears! Sweet!
Now, let me give proof to how stupid I am.....
Even if the theory of the hydraulic pressure spike traveling through the blood vessels is true.... there are many, many options for blood to rupture vessels long before this pressure spike made it up and into the brain. Plus there is the fact that blood vessels (as known to me any ways, remember.... I'm just an stupid guy.) are NOT hard/rigid and thus the entire travel path of the pressure spike would effectively expand the vessels relative to the pressure change and reduce the pressure. The further this pressure anomaly traveled, the more ruptures (closest to the bullet entry point would be most likely) and the more expansion of various vessels would facilitating in elliminating any far reaching damage outside of the near/direct area of the original pressure pulse.
I could be wrong, but for some reason I'm personally not wrapping my mind around his.....um... theory.
I’m with ya. Here’s some more food for thought. Everyday, health care providers across this country perform successful resuscitations of cardiac arrest patients. When done correctly during CPR, chest compressions are done with such force that they can compress the chest cavity by nearly ½ of its original depth. The chest compressions create such a real and high enough pressure wave that blood is circulated throughout the body, palpable pulses are generated and arterial blood pressures can be measured and recorded.
Even when performed perfectly correctly, chest compressions are done with such force that ribs can be snapped like popsicle sticks, the sternum can be fractured and separated from the ribs and the liver and spleen can be lacerated AND YET, NO TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY OCCURS from the pressure waves generated during CPR.
I don't believe it is fair to compare CPR chest compressions with high-velocity missile impacts. A bullet might not reach the same pressures as the compressions, but any pressure spikes are achieved in much less time. Elapsed time relative to total pressure is the key, I would think.
Note: as I said earlier, I'm just a psych student, but my area of interest lies in the brain itself and the more physiological aspects of psychology. I have the good fortune of having some of the greatest minds in many areas of the medical field at my university. My physiological psych professor and his colleagues are not aware of this phenomena (pressure waves in the extremities or thoracic cavity from high-speed, small-mass impacts resulting in damage to parts of the brain). On this I'll refer to my previous comments here (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=354015#post354015) (the topic as a whole is a good one to read on the subject). Once midterms are over I'll have to pass along the article Pastuer is referencing to the med and psych professors on campus and see what they think.
-B
One more try:
"Findings of Ronald F. Bellamy regarding indirect ballistic injuries"
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1136512
Well, I think this is BS that is being peddled, BUT! I do know that the pressure/pulsatile nature of the circulatory system has an effect on the brain.
We studied in class the other day about the "roller" style pumps (supplying a constant flow of circulation) used during CABG's when the heart was completely bypassed for the operation. Every now and then, people would wake up "not right". They were just a little "off" somehow and never recovered (the phenomina was termed "pump head", among health-care workers in private). Now that the pumps are pulsatile, mimicking the body's normal delivery of blood, this phenomina is much less common.
That is the only correlation I have seen thus far between what I know, and what is being peddled here, and I am not worried about the BG's personality shifting ever so slightly. I want him STOPPED.
...a note aside...
...in the book "Forensic Pathology of Trauma" by MJ Shkrum, MD and DA Ramsay, MB at page 319 you can see the pics of a man who shot himself two times in a suicide attempt....the first bullet hit him in the head but the bullet did not enter in his cranium vault so he shot himself a second time in the chest: that was the bullet that killed him...
...at page 344 of the same book you can see the dissected brain of the same deceased....and a large hemorrage(..in a zone more or less like triangular in shape about 1 1/2" deep with a base about 1" long..) in his brain because the former non fatal tangential wound....
..so I asked myself...even if there are microscopic capillaries rupture in the white matter because some blood vessels pressurization in the chest due to the bullet travel...what's their importance and reliability to stop a violent action in a short time when such a large hemorrage, certainly not microscopic, did not stop this man to kill himself pressing another time his pistol's trigger?
All the best
Andrea
Glock17JHP
11-03-09, 13:39
Courtney's stuff is like a bad religion... all he has to do is make you doubt just a little bit as to whether or not his stuff might be true... that's enough to mess you up...
I read his papers he refers to, it took a lot of time and effort. In fact, he was kind enough to email me some of them, including some digital pictures of deer he supposedly shot...
When all is said and done, we are wasting our time still discussing it... :rolleyes:
Glock17JHP
11-04-09, 13:44
Oh, by the way... Courtney is reading this thread...
He emailed me about my last remarks...
I don't believe it is fair to compare CPR chest compressions with high-velocity missile impacts. A bullet might not reach the same pressures as the compressions, but any pressure spikes are achieved in much less time. Elapsed time relative to total pressure is the key, I would think.
And what data do you have to support that statement?
misanthropist
02-10-10, 14:29
And what data do you have to support that statement?
I am not an expert in this field...or even a novice. As such I have data totaling approximately zero.
However, here is a guess: I am thinking the velocity of application of hydraulic pressure is probably significant in the same way that velocity of application of mechanical pressure is significant.
I don't think anyone would dispute that if you took two identical 55 grain projectiles and launched them at two identical people, one at 2900 fps, and one at 29 fps, that the 29 fps guy would be less disturbed by the result than the 2900 fps guy.
I am GUESSING that the elapsed time relative to the application of pressure is important because it reflects the amount of energy imparted to the hydraulic fluid. Energy being the ability to do work; hydraulic fluid with lots of energy imparted to it would do more work on whatever substance to which it was applied.
Again that's a guess. I work with a lot of hydraulic machines and have seen a lot of hydraulics failures but I am not a hydraulics expert any more than I am a ballistics expert.
And I definitely agree that although theoretically I see the possibility of imparting energy to the nervous system via hydraulics, in practise I believe that the elasticity of blood vessels would tend to absorb the majority of any energy being transmitted in this way, and that it would definitely not lead to reliable incapacitation.
I think if human anatomy were very different, and the nervous system was housed in, say, the abdominal cavity, there would be a greater chance for a pressure wave generated by the impact of the bullet to damage the nervous tissue.
But in practise I think we've been designed pretty well. A lot of the critical processors have been stuck out in the ball at the top of the machine, and encased in a sturdy container. I think the neck would do a fairly good job of reducing harmful hydraulic or mechanical shocks to the brain. And the other critical brain bits seem to be pretty sturdily housed in a bony column surrounded by much more easily compressible tissue. I think it would be difficult to transmit sufficient energy via "hydrostatic shock" to do a lot of damage unless the energy was imparted very close, and the amount of energy was very high.
And then in that case, I think if you've rammed something in with a ton of energy very close to any of the critical nervous system bits, then you're pretty much done anyway. I would be surprised if the human body could regularly absorb 500 foot pounds of energy in a small area right next to the brain or spinal column without wrecking some other key parts. I guess this would be possible in the abdomen, but I would think the areas within three inches of your spinal column and brain are mostly filled with either major parts you need to keep, like heart and lungs, or else the support systems for those parts, like blood vessels.
But of course I am not an anatomist either. I am not speaking from experience or training. I am just guessing on the basis of my general knowledge of physics and anatomy, which is not all that much better than your average college student, I would guess.
A lot of people have been shot in the face, zygoma, maxilla, and mandible with both handgun, rifle, and shotgun projectiles and lived--even when hit very close range with no intervening obstacles.
misanthropist
02-10-10, 17:13
I never really thought about it, but I wonder if that whole facial structure could act as a bit of a "crumple zone".
If you took a hard hit to the frontal or parietal bones, for instance, well, there's not much to distribute the force.
On the other hand, there's a lot of small, crunchable stuff in the face...I wonder if that helps to slow the bullet down like the crumple zone on a car?
And if there was just a big gap where the sphenoid is, would the brain be more susceptible to wave-related injury from shots to the maxilla that might currently be survivable? I have no idea...but it doesn't seem like a very reliable means of incapacitation, regardless.
I guess there are instances of people being shot right through the cranial cavity and right though one hemisphere of their brain and surviving...if there is no major damage to the other hemisphere despite being immediately adjacent, then for me that would pretty much clinch it. If there is any situation in which a "ballistic pressure wave" effect would destroy neural tissue, I think that would be it, so if it doesn't happen there, I guess as a layman I would conclude it would never reliably happen ever.
Again I am just guessing here...I don't know what happens to people who get shot on one side of the head.
I am not an expert in this field...or even a novice. As such I have data totaling approximately zero.
You’re right. You have absolutely “zero” factual data pertaining to why a bullet which supposedly creates a rapid increase in pressure, yet has a low magnitude of pressure, will produce a mythical remote pressure wave that will cause traumatic brain injury from a GSW to the thorax, when the very real and substantial pressure produced during chest compressions does not cause traumatic brain injury. Also, your references to “hydrostatic shock” and “energy transfer” were debunked as wounding mechanisms for small arms fire by Dr. Martin Fackler years ago.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE WOUND BALLISTICS LITERATURE, AND WHY
by M.L. Fackler, M.D.
Letterman Army Institute of Research
Division of Military Trauma Research
Presidio of San Francisco, California 94219
Institute Report No. 239
The “Shock Wave” Myth
By Dr. Martin Fackler
Wound Ballistics Review, Winter 1991 and the Journal of Trauma, (29[10]: 1455, 1989).
Ballistic Injury
By Dr. Martin Fackler
Annals of Emergency Medicine, December 1986
misanthropist
02-11-10, 11:31
Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything nor do I support either of those theories as methods of incapacitation or even reliable wounding...I am just pointing out that there is no reason there could not be a theoretically measurable increase in pressure at a site some distance away from the site of impact.
I don't think that's particularly outlandish...I would be surprised if you could not measure an increase in pressure a foot away from the flight path of a bullet in mid air if you had a sensitive enough instrument.
In a medium as dense as human tissue, I would be extremely shocked if there was no way to detect any sort of pressure a few inches from the impact site.
I think that gelatin testing bears this out...after all the outer edges of the blocks do seem to be temporarily deformed by the impact of the bullet, and I don't know how to describe the origin of this movement without saying that a wave has passed through the medium.
Do I think that wave is strong enough to damage neural tissue? No, probably not, and in any case our neural tissue is fairly well protected, so I think it would be very surprising if this had any sort of pronounced terminal effect.
But that doesn't mean that no wave exists, or that no pressure increase in blood vessels struck occurs; it only means that the pressure is not significant and does not generate sufficient trauma to be worth worrying about, which is in fact what my position has been all along.
I think you've mistaken me for someone who buys in to BPW theory as a method of incapacitation, but that is not what I am.
I've spend a great deal of time reading over lots of different ballistic research materials. Most of Fackler's work, in addition to IWBA articles make a lot of sense to me and the researchers have lots of examples to demonstrate their points. Basically, "here is my theory, here are a bunch of highly qualified people that agree, here are a bunch of applicable experiments to prove the theory, and here are a bunch of real life examples that prove the theory".
I wouldn't say I'm a genius when it comes to physics, mathmatics, and science.......but I did get through differential and integral engineering calculus. Looking at Courtney's work, it does look impressive on paper, but it seems to not coincide with what I've read from medical field experts. It seems to be so physics focused, that it only skims over the physiological aspect of the body and assumes that the body will react a certain way without any evidence to demonstrate this. I've read of a number of medical doctors and surgeons that have looked over his papers and said that many aspects to his medical assumptions are wrong, and seem to lack educated knowledge of the subject. Kinda like when medical professionals and professors read the Strasbourg Goat Test report and stated that without a doubt it was a fraud because as smart as it sounded, the details of the writing indicated that the author was not educated in the medical field and it was full of assumptions and subject errors. Sometimes I wonder if someone like Courtney wrote that report as it was dated around the same time as he supposedly was an undergrad, already researching the subject with dreams of getting his doctorate.
Here's how I view pressure wave theory.........."here is my theory, here are a handful of highly qualified people in physics that agree with how physics work, here are some calculations and equipment experiments that show that the math part of the theory works, and here are a couple of real life examples that kinda(not really) show that I "might" be right..........but because you can't outright prove that I'm wrong, I must be right."
Glock17JHP
02-12-10, 13:35
I am still amazed how he put the small deer in a 5 gallon bucket of water up to the neck and then shot vertically into the bucket with a rifle to see the effect it would have on the poor little guy...
Fear, most likely!!!
:confused:
I am still amazed how he put the small deer in a 5 gallon bucket of water up to the neck and then shot vertically into the bucket with a rifle to see the effect it would have on the poor little guy...
Fear, most likely!!!
:confused:
Good Lord.......:eek:
And what data do you have to support that statement?
"I think" is a pretty important part of what I said, especially as I stated nothing as if it were proven, factual, documented evidence. I've made it clear here and elsewhere my position on "ballistic pressure waves causing damage to the brain", so I'm not sure what you're arguing against.
-B
Aurispector
02-14-10, 11:59
The simplest, most common sense way to look at Courtney's work is this: at best, it shows that an unreliable phenomenon sometimes occurs. There are far too many instances where people survive large caliber, high velocity wounds without succumbing to some postulated injury from BPW.
It seems a bit far fetched for him to assert that this should factor into caliber choice, particularly when people often simply can not shoot the larger calibers as accurately.
The trade off in accuracy can't be proven to be worth it.
Heavy Metal
02-14-10, 12:11
Any website that pre-emptively bans Larry Vickers can s*** my ***k!
Let Glocktalk have him, they deserve each other!
Courtney has been a busy little beaver on Wikipedia, inserting references to his "research" into many gun-related pages and removing doubt about the hydrostatic shock nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michael_Courtney
Glock17JHP
04-02-10, 13:27
This is why we still need the IWBA, or another similar organization. As long as folks like him generate volumes of junk to the public unchecked, we will continue to have misinformed masses.
Although... maybe that's OK... I mean, I would rather have a potential attacker be uninformed when he/she picks a weapon or ammo to use against me or a loved one... :D
That´s why I asked how to find the IWBA Reviews.
It´s easy to find bad info, especially using google and wiki. And this is the way most people do!
But good info is hard to find.
Plus there is the fact that blood vessels (as known to me any ways, remember.... I'm just an stupid guy.) are NOT hard/rigid and thus the entire travel path of the pressure spike would effectively expand the vessels relative to the pressure change and reduce the pressure.
Larry, maybe the test subjects referred to have ............. hardened arteries. :cool:
Keith
Larry, maybe the test subjects referred to have ............. hardened arteries. :cool:
Keith
See that... I was wrong :(. I was not thinking correctly. Thank you for pointing out the very obvious fact that I was not able to come up with on my own:o! Now it's all coming together for me :D.
I have a simple question, don't read into it please, but:
Courtney claims to have shot some deer. The ones hit with the slower moving 9mm ran further than the ones hit with the faster 9mm.
Is it that the sample-size was insignificant?
Is it that the results are claimed to be fabricated?
Why does this "fact" (I use that term looking at the information at face value) generate no interest?
Maybe because Courtney has no credibility?
Doc Roberts wrote regarding his Ballistic Pressure Wave theory:
"Again, sorry, but we are simply NOT seeing a lot of folks killed or incapacitated from remote CNS damage caused by shots to the torso. In fact, there are a fair number of veterans walking around, leading normal non-brain damaged lives after taking solid hits to the torso from 8 mm Mauser, 7.7 mm, .303 Brit, .30-06, 7.62x54 mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm, 6.5 mm, etc...
Forensic pathologists look for the cause of death--if significant distant CNS injuries from projectile strikes to the torso are resulting in deaths, then they'll look for it. But since that is not happening, there is not much to report."
DrJSW wrote regarding those deer studies that you(WS6) seem to be fond of:
"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 cited obscure papers as support of his theories that in reality do not support them.
DrJSW wrote in regards to this:
"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."
Courtney also claimed the existance 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.
Oh, and Courtney believed among other things that God spoke to him and told him that he would marry a woman with pink tassled sneakers, or something to that effect:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney
He also believes that he is a Prophet sent by God:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15
mich...@krypton.mit.edu (Michael Courtney) writes:
"I am a prophet sent by God to declare the destruction of the United States
because of abortion. "
Evan Marshall, Michael Courtney, you seem to have a penchant for believing discredited people just because they say what you want to hear.
Maybe because Courtney has no credibility?
Doc Roberts wrote regarding his Ballistic Pressure Wave theory:
"Again, sorry, but we are simply NOT seeing a lot of folks killed or incapacitated from remote CNS damage caused by shots to the torso. In fact, there are a fair number of veterans walking around, leading normal non-brain damaged lives after taking solid hits to the torso from 8 mm Mauser, 7.7 mm, .303 Brit, .30-06, 7.62x54 mm, 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm, 6.5 mm, etc...
Forensic pathologists look for the cause of death--if significant distant CNS injuries from projectile strikes to the torso are resulting in deaths, then they'll look for it. But since that is not happening, there is not much to report."
DrJSW wrote regarding those deer studies that you(WS6) seem to be fond of:
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 cited obscure papers as support of his theories that in reality do not support them.
DrJSW wrote in regards to this:
"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."
Courtney also claimed the existance 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.
Oh, and Courtney believed among other things that God spoke to him and told him that he would marry a woman with pink tassled sneakers, or something to that effect:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usenet.kooks/msg/50d38a25eb99e5b3?&q=michael+courtney
He also believes that he is a Prophet sent by God:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/bf62c9a9039bcc15
mich...@krypton.mit.edu (Michael Courtney) writes:
"I am a prophet sent by God to declare the destruction of the United States
because of abortion. "
Evan Marshall, Michael Courtney, you seem to have a penchant for believing discredited people just because they say what you want to hear.
Reading comprehension fail, but you still gave me some good info, thanks.
Way to be a dick, catch you on a bad day? Thanks for the informative parts of your post though.
Oh, you don't like me pointing out that you choose the most questionable and discredited people in the relm of wound incapacitation as support, including kooks like Courtney?
BTW, unlike Courtney, God does not talk to me and the Easter Bunny did not leave any Easter eggs in my Easter Basket; he just pissed in it.
Oh, you don't like me pointing out that you choose the most questionable and discredited people in the relm of wound incapacitation as support, including kooks like Courtney?
BTW, unlike Courtney, God does not talk to me and the Easter Bunny did not leave any Easter eggs in my Easter Basket; he just pissed in it.
*Edited my post to remove the name-calling, which was done after you quoted it, and before I read this.
See, the problem is, I asserted support for NOTHING in my OP, and simpy asked a question. You decided it was mount-up and go on a crusade time. Therein is the source of my irritation of your response.
See, the problem is, I asserted support for NOTHING in my OP, and simpy asked a question. You decided it was mount-up and go on a crusade time. Therein is the source of my irritation of your response.
You constantly mention discredited people and then try to crawfish out of your support for them when their lack of credibility gets pointed out.
This thread is a perfect example with Evan Marshall:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=49828&page=4
You constantly mention discredited people and then try to crawfish out of your support for them when their lack of credibility gets pointed out.
This thread is a perfect example with Evan Marshall:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=49828&page=4
"Don't read into it please"
I guess you didn't read that part.
I never supported anyone in this thread. I simply asked a question.
Noone is "craw-fishing" anything.
We get it, in your opinion, anyone even mentioning Even, Courtney, etc. is automatically their life-long fan and you go batshit. Now lets move on.
Calling Marshall by his first name hmmm? Are you now on a first name basis? BTW, its Evan. :D
Calling Marshall by his first name hmmm? Are you now on a first name basis? BTW, its Evan. :D
Spelling. My ultimate nemesis. The reason I call him Evan (Even :rolleyes:) Is because I never can remember how many "L"s are in his last name.
Glock17JHP
04-07-10, 13:22
Let's see... Evan Marlshlalll...
I count 5... :D
Let's see... Evan Marlshlalll...
I count 5... :D
You laugh, but you don't know just how long it took me to proof-read my resume, lol
Legion_Prime
04-08-10, 02:43
Well I think what would seal the deal for me on this issue was the incident I read about on LF a few months ago where a member related a call he went on where a woman had been shot in the head ( forget if it was self inflicted or not). They got to the house and the woman let them in, made them coffee and it was a while before they even realized that the woman he was talking to was the woman who had been shot. The bullet had apparently entered her forehead, passed between the two lobes of her brain and then exited the back of her skull leaving her apparently not much the worse for wear. That in combination with all the other similar wounds one hears about people surviving makes it a little hard to believe that some mythical shockwave from a chest wound will kill you and while a bullet directly through the brain is somehow still survivable.
I am by no means any type of authority in anatomy or ballistics, however this just does not pass the test of common sense.
Glock17JHP
04-09-10, 08:26
I would guess that incident with the woman was made up, or the story altered significantly. The forehead entrance would be noticeable even to a child, bleeding would be occurring, too. The scalp bleeds pretty good, too... so I would assume the exit wound would be bleeding quite a bit, too. I remember when Brady (Reagan era) was shot through the frontal area of the forehead (he survived), but he bled significantly and went down fast. The round that struck him was a .22.
Legion_Prime
04-10-10, 02:50
I believe he said she had wrapped a towel around her head, and there may not have been an exit wound. I am of course oversimplifying the story a great deal as I only read it in passing last year so I'll admit to not recalling a whole lot of the details, but that was the general gist of the incident that was related. Even if the truth was stretched a bit there are enough other cases such as Brady that you mentioned where people have taken wounds to the head and in some cases the brain itself and still have survived.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/www_publicradio/tools/media_player/popup.php?name=minnesota/news/programs/2010/07/13/midmorning/midmorning_hour_1_20100713_64
An interesting discussion, too bad I missed it, could have asked some questions online.
QuietShootr
07-14-10, 17:07
I would guess that incident with the woman was made up, or the story altered significantly. The forehead entrance would be noticeable even to a child, bleeding would be occurring, too. The scalp bleeds pretty good, too... so I would assume the exit wound would be bleeding quite a bit, too. I remember when Brady (Reagan era) was shot through the frontal area of the forehead (he survived), but he bled significantly and went down fast. The round that struck him was a .22.
I doubt that it was made up at all. When I lived in Tulsa in the 90s, there was a little girl about 8 who was shot in the back of the head with a .357 Magnum by her little brother who thought Dad's gun was a toy. The bullet passed through her skull between the hemispheres and came out her forehead, and she lived with no impairment.
The one thing you can count on when someone gets shot is that you don't know what's going to happen for sure.
Courtney has been a busy little beaver on Wikipedia, inserting references to his "research" into many gun-related pages and removing doubt about the hydrostatic shock nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Michael_Courtney
Well that explains why wikipedia used to say that hydrostatic shock was basically bunk, but now says there is some evidence for it.
Glock17JHP
07-25-10, 22:00
I would rather not even discuss the guy...
I have a suspicion (not based on any real expert opinion, mind you) that the guy might be bi-polar... He goes from friendly to un-friendly pretty easily, and takes his reputation far too seriously!!!
I'm done on this thread, recommend locking it...
From the wikipedia on hydrostatic shock:
In Armed and Female, Paxton Quigley explains that hydrostatic shock is the real source of “stopping power."
Well.... that settles it then.......
:rolleyes:
Since this hardly merits another thread and this one seems to be the most appropriate for this:
Just a "heads up"...
Michael Courtney has yet again "drawn another name from the hat" and is now pushing the same worn out nonsense (BPW) under the screen name "swede1945" over on GT (and a couple other forums).
Same ol' puffery; new alter-ego.
Apologies for bringing this thread back from the grave.
Glock17JHP
02-13-11, 18:41
I used to go to GT, used to try to 'convert' any who were reasonable and intelligent enough to listen. I would try to explain wound ballistics in simple terms, and some would listen. Some ended up here.
There are 'bullies' there that have bought into the BPW and similar nonsense, and are kissing up to our 'friend', probably to try to work up on the pecking order over there at GT. It is hard to function around such nonsense and immaturity.
I went back there a few times, and tried new approaches at different times. It got worse over the years, and I would get very frustrated. I eventually commited GT suicide aand asked them to please block and ban me forever, for my own peace of mind. Best thing I ever did.
You know they talk about us there, right? They think we here at M4 are stupid and just blindly accept 'Facklerism' and play with Jello. Too much ignorance over there... just say no.
Heavy Metal
02-13-11, 18:58
One thing that has recently transpired is the Giffords shooting. I wonder how he accounts for that?
You know they talk about us there, right? They think we here at M4 are stupid and just blindly accept 'Facklerism' and play with Jello.
Funny how they call it "Facklerlism", when it was a group of dedicated wound ballistic folks around the world that gave us the information we now have.
The CPR point is invalid, as it is an apples to oranges comparison. One is dead, one is alive (shot and about to be dead). Hence, the neurological system behaves differently in both instances.
I remember a pt. that we were resuscitating in the cath lab one day had a known aortic aneurysm and the goal of treatment is to keep the blood pressure down to safer limits as to not extend the tear, so he may go to the OR under controlled conditions.
Long story short, his conditioned declined requiring urgent intubation. While being intubated, the manipulation of the airway caused his blood pressure to spike to ~300mmhg (normal is 120/80). This led to his demise as his weakend vessel popped as one expect. This doesn't prove shit regarding microvascular brain wave injury patterns.
It does show there are discrete mechanisms at work.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence!
I used to go to GT, used to try to 'convert' any who were reasonable and intelligent enough to listen. I would try to explain wound ballistics in simple terms, and some would listen. Some ended up here.
There are 'bullies' there that have bought into the BPW and similar nonsense, and are kissing up to our 'friend', probably to try to work up on the pecking order over there at GT. It is hard to function around such nonsense and immaturity.
I went back there a few times, and tried new approaches at different times. It got worse over the years, and I would get very frustrated. I eventually commited GT suicide aand asked them to please block and ban me forever, for my own peace of mind. Best thing I ever did.
You know they talk about us there, right? They think we here at M4 are stupid and just blindly accept 'Facklerism' and play with Jello. Too much ignorance over there... just say no.
Eh, I know. No skin off of my back. Let 'em talk.
There are a few (very few actually) over there that are not beyond reach and I'll take those little victories when I can. The rest can....well, y'know...
In the end, I'll take the advice and findings of those whom adhere to the scientific model (shortcomings and all, nothing's perfect) over those who confuse imagination and conjecture with proper research.
GT suicide? ha ha ha
Look something like this? :suicide:
Glock17JHP
02-15-11, 19:39
It amazed me how the people at GT thought that ballistic gelatin was stupid, jokingly calling it 'Jello'. In any scientific endeavor you need a 'control', and you need repeatability. Ballistic gelatin gives us that. It allows one to compare apples to apples when comparing 2 or more different loads. Instead of being able to test apples to apples, they want to compare 2 shots in 2 different people, or 2 different anatomical locations on 1 person. They try to compare loads in ways that are scientifically invalid, and also like to look at what a witness to a shooting describes, which is likely to be exaggerated or just flat wrong.
I used to believe that garbage when I was a newbie who could only get the stuff the gun magazines were printing. Later (because I wanted to learn), I found out about Dr. Fackler and took the effort to track him down (this was before the IWBA, when he was still at the Letterman Army Institute) and ask him questions. I am glad he was willing to talk to me, and that I eventually was able to be an IWBA member.
GT suicide... best thing I ever did!!! If I get tempted to try to go back there... I don't... because I know I am permanently blocked!!! That's a good thing.
It's amazing how closed-minded most people at GT are. You would think more of them would want to learn and make sure they believed TRUTH. Truth is out there (in all subjects), but sometimes one has to do some research to find it. It's easy to think that a lie is truth if it the only thing you know.
G-
Until I read Duncan MacPherson's book, "Bullet Penetration", I was unsure about what to believe. I've now become so familiar with the equations and their maipulation that I've actually worn out two scientific calculators since 2006 after I got/read the book and am presently on my way to destroying the third one as we communicate. As a result of reading MacPherson's book, it's gotten so that I visit GT only for brief time periods and only then for purposes that suit me.
One day, I may very well "pull the pin", too.
Of course, there are the regular loons who "frequent" the 'site and provide me a little schadenfruede when I feel the need, but even that loses its allure after just a few minutes.
Stay safe, K?
Heavy Metal
02-16-11, 23:13
This Courtney fellow is shitting up almost every single firearm and ammunition page on Wikipedia with his Hydrostatic Shock garbage.
This Courtney fellow is shitting up almost every single firearm and ammunition page on Wikipedia with his Hydrostatic Shock garbage.
HeavyMetal-
You've noticed that, too? :D
Having had his "theory" (I'm being polite here) handed back to him with an "EPIC FAIL" rating from the scientific community, I've become convinced, after seeing that which you've mentioned above, that Dr Courtney has nothing better to do than "self-publish" his bogus material wherever he can "get a foot in the door"; preferably at no cost. Free publicity is the best publicity, ain't it? :rolleyes:
Afterall, what does an unemployable "physicist" :rolleyes: do with all that "spare time"?
Ultimately, I find his pursuit for the validation of his "theory" a wholly pathetic one; one clearly produced of an all-consuming need to satisfy his pathological desire for self-aggrandization.
Glock17JHP
02-17-11, 13:15
481,
Agree with you comments... and especially agree that 'Bullet Penetration' taught me a lot, too. I was sad to see the IWBA end, too... the information there was extremely valuable.
I still think the most rediculous part MC wrote was about the critter that he 'claims' to have stuck in a 5-gallon bucket of water up to its neck and then proceeded to shoot vertically into the bucket next to it to test his theory. Just think about that for a while...:fie:
481,
Agree with you comments... and especially agree that 'Bullet Penetration' taught me a lot, too. I was sad to see the IWBA end, too... the information there was extremely valuable.
I still think the most rediculous part MC wrote was about the critter that he 'claims' to have stuck in a 5-gallon bucket of water up to its neck and then proceeded to shoot vertically into the bucket next to it to test his theory. Just think about that for a while...:fie:
G-
Oh, I'd rather not, but, yes, I remember his claim. :rolleyes:
When any slob does something like that in the "name of science", it gives legitimate researchers a 'black eye' simply because there are many folks who would attribute such (mis)behavior to those who would never dream of committing such an atrocious act in order to evaluate a hypothesis.
"Mythbusters" did something along these lines on an episode sometime ago (they were dispelling the idiomatic expression, "Easier than shooting fish in a barrel") and although they fall far short of being legtimate scientific researchers, they at least had the decency to use an analog ("fake" and already dead fish with transducers mounted inside of them) as opposed to filling a water barrel full of fish and just blasting away.
Dr Courtney could learn a thing or two from them.
Glock17JHP
02-17-11, 19:58
That is true... I sometimes watch that show and it can be interesting. My family and I comment on the 'way' they conduct the experiments. Sometimes they use good scientific methods, and sometimes they do not. Overall, they are entertaining, though.
Maybe MC is trying to 'entertain' us??? :jester:
That is true... I sometimes watch that show and it can be interesting. My family and I comment on the 'way' they conduct the experiments. Sometimes they use good scientific methods, and sometimes they do not. Overall, they are entertaining, though.
Maybe MC is trying to 'entertain' us??? :jester:
Perhaps. If that is the case, he's doing a piss poor job of it.
Just wish there were more programs as entertaining as the Mythbusters. Not enough TV like that nowadays.
:)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.