View Single Post
Old 02-10-2010, 12:22   #321
Bones13's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Directly above the center of the ea
Posts: 41
The reason I'm quoting less than all you posted is simply because I don't take issue with the vast majority of what I didn't quote of your post.

More or less the same here. Trying to limit things to what has not been covered. No sense beating dead horses. Move the discussion forward.

To my knowledge Fackler has never openly commented toward Dr. Courtney's work which would include anything related to terminology including the phrase ballistic pressure wave. IIRC, what he did take issue with were stuff like: energy dump, hydrostatic shock.....and stuff like that which was really never defined. I believe Dr. Fackler is generally staying out of the public eye.

Dunno what Fackler thinks about it but I suspect that his main complaint would be that the best that could be done, even with good data, is prove the existence of an unreliable phenomenon.

As for what Fackler's true intentions were from the start of the International Wound Ballistics Association (IWBA), I'm not sure anyone truely knows. Seems to me the FBI couldn't particularily stand having him around. Aside from any of those questionables, all of Fackler/Roberts/McPhearson among others in the IWBA did bring some excellent insight to the table which we've all learned from and probably would have never existed to the rest of us if it weren't for them.

The context in which Fackler published has to be taken into account. As you said before, people were routinely throwing around bull**** terms like "knockdown power". SOMEBODY had to put the discussion on firmer ground. I think he should at least get credit for that. You could even look at Courtney's work as an extension of that line of thought, even if you don't agree with it.

Dunno much about the IWBA or what the FBI thought beyond this:

You've probably seen it but it bears reading and re-reading.

True! Dr. Courtney did bring it up and has never shyed from doing so. I have no problem with that, nor do I disagree in any way. What I'm saying is is that the TBI part of it wasn't even part of the theory and is nothing more than a hypothetical. Probably a good hypothetical, but none the less a hypothetical.

FWIW Courtney does talk directly about TBI being the mechanism on the first page:

My perspective is that even every thought you have can be traced to a particular physiologic event - a specific set of neurons firing in a specific pattern. There has to be a physiologic explanation to take it beyond just saying "I shoot him & he fall down go boom". What exactly do we mean by incapacitation? Seemingly specific words have a way of meaning less than we think. What does it mean to say a neuron fires? It gets complicated very quickly.

The thing is, I don't care who anyone is, they can throw around terminology like "Traumatic Brain Injury" which is probably dang near 100% true in one way or another in the context we're bringing it up, yet doesn't tell you anything definitive in any way whatsoever. TBI is an EXTREMELY broad concept and only a generality at best. So sure, it probably is TBI, but what specific TBI.

All good questions, but specifics are what drives the science. It was asserted earlier in this thread that there is no difference between the type of damage that occurs when sheep butt heads and when BPW causes TBI, which is just silly.

Slamming the brain against the inside of the skull is very different from a fluid pressure wave passing through the tissue. They both might result in unconsciousness or injury, but for far different reasons. You're right; at this point we don't have a clue why it might happen in any detailed way.

And this is where the equation(s) Dr. Courtney has come up with really shed light. Those equations take all of the following into account and then some: velocity, kinetic energy, penetration depth, bullet weight, bullet construction.....and show us in psi a close approximation to what the expected peak ballistic pressure wave is. No one elses work has ever showed us this level of refinement toward a certain power level of the ammo you're using.

It's interesting stuff. I'd like to see it get developed a lot more if for no other reason that to give ER docs something to look for.

Most equations developed in the past (Taylor Knockout Formula...) simply equate to a reletively arbitrary number and don't take half into account as Dr. Courtney's do.

Yup. It's a step in the right direction.

Dr. Courtney's equations show us why there's never been any apprecialbe difference between, 9, 40, or 45, against BGs. And for the first time, Dr. Courtney's equations actually take into account specific bullet design along with all other specific individual pertinent load properties. I believe it's the most comprehensive way to measure the power of a round in any media it's fired into.

Dunno if I'd completely accept the assertion that there's NO difference but I get what you're saying.

At the end of the day, I believe the single biggest downfall for people trying to decide if this should mean anything to them or not, is relying on LE/military to provide all the answers. And that is about the last place you'll get the info you're looking for because of the rounds and loads they limit themselves to in terms of handguns.

The military and LE aren't usually researchers. Sometimes research conducted by military or LE agencies is biased, too. If your boss wants the results to be X, the results have a way of being X, especially if you want a promotion.

The literature talks about psychological versus physiological factors causing incapacitation. Does a larger BPW simply means it hurts more? Or that it gives the victim a greater sense of "having been shot"?

I used to have a link (which of course now I can't find) to an article about how hollywood cliches have informed peoples expectation about what happens when someone is shot. People fall down because they think they're supposed to.
The Audacity of Nope
Bones13 is offline   Reply With Quote