Just the facts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: Just the facts

  1. #1

    Just the facts

    Reply to Massad Ayoob's Kooky Screed
    -by Shawn Dodson

    Massad Ayoob, Shawn Dodson, Reply to Ayoob's Kooky Screed

    My first experience with Massad Ayoob's writings, that I can recall, was in 1984, when I attended basic law enforcement training. My instructors handed out photocopies of a
    three-part article he'd written about the California Highway Patrol's Newhall Massacre, which had been published in Police Product News. Ayoob masterfully authored a gripping account, and the hook was set. I found Ayoob's articles and books informative, instructive, and entertaining.

    In the 1990s, I began my study of wound ballistics, and it was here where I discovered troubling issues with Ayoob’s credibility, specifically in articles that dealt with shooting incident reports and “stopping power.” My distrust grew as I encountered questionable claims that I had reason to believe were untrue. I instigated a skunk fight with Ayoob when I described my doubts about his testimony in a purported “court” case (which Ayoob erroneously refers to as "Christine Hansen et. al., v. Federal Bureau of Investigation").2, 3, 4

    “I testified. The court listened.”5
    As documented in Hansen v. Webster (p. 3), Ayoob never testified in “court.” Indeed a “court” never heard his testimony.
    In June 1980, Ayoob testified, as an expert witness for complainant Christine A. Hansen, against the FBI, in an administrative hearing conducted by a Complaints Examiner for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    ONE of the items claimed, which Ayoob supported, was that the FBI issue, medium-frame Smith & Wesson revolver was inappropriate for female agents because it was designed to fit the hand of an average male. FBI lawyer John Hall cross-examined Ayoob. Hall blind-sided Ayoob with a magazine article that Ayoob recently authored, in which he recommended the K-frame Smith & Wesson revolver as the ideal weapon for women. This is the very gun Ayoob had just testified was unsuitable for women! Hall instructed Ayoob to read aloud from his own article that contradicted his earlier expert testimony. Ayoob reluctantly complied in a subdued and hushed voice.

    Conclusions. When people ask me about carrying guns for women, I generally recommend a small .38 Special with exotic ammo, knowing that they’ll probably wind up with wadcutters no matter what I say. I recommend something on a moderate frame for small hands. Colt’s Police Positive, revitalized two years ago and sadly being discontinued this year, is a good choice as is the Diamondback, which has a chance for survival. In the Smith line, a K-frame .38 Special should have the round butt, and be fitted with a Tyler-T grip adapter, a combination that fits many female hands, and small male hands, superbly. [Emphasis added]

    My second choice would be an S&W Chief Special with 3" barrel... [Emphasis added]

    -Ayoob, Massad F.: "Selecting the Woman’s Defense Gun." Guns, March 1979; pp. 8, 46-49.

    (Ayoob's "second choice", the Smith & Wesson Chief's Special, is also known as the Model 36 (M36). It is a small-frame (J-frame) revolver.)
    In the same article, Ayoob describes “exotic ammo”:

    …with an "exotic" load, the 38 Special is a moderately effective manstopper.

    By that we mean hollowpoints. Not semi-jacketed “softnoses,” which despite their theoretically equivalent ballistics on the mathematical sheets offer little more shock effect than the feeble old round nose, but either semi-jacketed hollowpoints from 110 to 125 grains, or maybe the 158 grain all lead H.P., (all of which are known generally as "Plus-P"), or maybe the new Scorpion.

    The all-lead HPs, available only in the full 158-gr weight, generally mushroom reliably, but again, since recoil is primarily a function of bullet weight when pressures are equal, as in Plus-P factory .38 stuff, they kick harder.
    -Ibid.

    Unfortunately for those with female hands, the FBI did not issue wadcutter cartridges as duty ammo, and it had no intention of doing so. It issued the dependable .38 Special 158-grain +P LSWCHP cartridge (“FBI load”), which "kick harder" as Ayoob described accurately.

    "Dodson gets his false interpretation of Hansen from the aforementioned mentor."6

    -Ayoob, Massad: “Dodson Response.” August 20054

    Ayoob's bizarre speculation, above, is inaccurate. According to retired SSA Urey W. Patrick, former Assistant Chief of the FBI Firearms Training Unit:

    John Hall demolished Ayoob - in a civil, polite and unmistakable manner....

    The Hansen suit was not lost on the firearms allegations. Actually, the suit was not lost at all – it was settled. The settlement terms did not substantially change the FBI firearms program – they substantially changed the FBI physical fitness requirements, recruiting practices, and some other personnel and training measures. The FBI agreed to identify a smaller weapon to have on hand to offer female trainees who could not physically handle the issued S&W M13, but with no compulsion to actually issue them except in individual cases where the instructor and the student agreed after the student failed with the M13. An M36 with 3” barrel was selected to meet the terms of the agreement. Issuing it never happened, since those who failed with the M13 did not want to try a smaller weapon with a shorter sight radius, lighter weight, reduced capacity and increased recoil effects – all of which they were given the chance to experience.

    The other change in the firearms program was to mandate uniformity in the remedial program for students who failed initial qualification. Prior to the settlement, remediation was left to the Principal Firearms Instructor for the class - some would devote far more time than others. The settlement agreed to make remediation uniform so that all failed trainees got equal time and instruction. The downside was that any extra time beyond what was specified in the official remedial program was absolutely forbidden. Those instructors willing and eager to provide some extra time to their students could not do so - legally barred from it.

    "Job critical" was the key. Ability with a firearm was clearly job critical - and the court [as opposed to the EEOC hearing cited by Ayoob] supported that, and supported the expertise of the FBI in deciding weapons/ammunition best suited to meeting the needs of that criticality. The court deferred completely - with the single exception of the remediation program, which was deemed unfair to those with less conscientious instructors. Essentially, the court said that in those areas that are truly "job critical", an agency has a pretty free hand to do what is best and require what is best, as determined by the agency.

    As you may infer - Ayoob had nothing to do with any of that. But then he knows that nobody is going to read the settlement, the transcripts or get anything out of the FBI so he promotes his own view for his own interests - as with so much else he does.

    -E-mail to Shawn Dodson, March 2005


    Ayoob is a master of self promotion - never overly constrained by consistency or fact. The FBI’s experience clearly proved the problem was not the fit of the gun, as Ayoob dishonestly hypothesized in his embellished “court” testimony; instead the problem was the "hard kicking" ammo he truthfully described in Guns magazine several months earlier.
    ________________________________________
    Stuck on Stupid: Ayoob and the FBI-Miami Shootout
    Ayoob is offended by falsehood, which is how I describe his "FBI Miami Shootout" reports.4, 7 It appears in two places, the title and conclusion. Considering that he believes his only error – HIS ONLY ERROR – is to misspell Gilbert Orrantia's surname, I doubt he'd accept any word that suggests the slightest hint of inaccuracy. His complaint, however, has not fallen on deaf ears. Ayoob compelled me to reconsider falsehood, and I concede it might be inappropriate. I believe ******** is more fitting.

    On the issue of weasel-words, Ayoob’s mischaracterization of court and falsehood are prime examples. Anecdotal is another. In a scientific context, an anecdotal report simply means the data are incomplete, subjective interpretation, or have not/cannot be verified. Nevertheless, in a contrived effort to discredit critics of his pal’s stopping power survey, Ayoob disingenuously weasel-words anecdotal, applying his now recycled “debater’s trick” malarkey:

    Critics of the IWBA like to scoff at the Marshall study as “anecdotal” rather than “scientific.” That use of the term is a cheap debater’s trick. It relies on the public’s connotation of the word “anecdote” as meaning a joke. Actually the first definition of an anecdote is “a short telling of an incident that happened.”
    If it doesn’t fit the expectations of some guy in a lab coat who shoots bullets into gelatin, does that mean it’s a joke? Quite the contrary.

    …Anybody who says anecdotal reports are a joke is telling you that your [law enforcement] experience, and the collective experience of your professional community, is useless.
    -Ayoob, Massad: "CopTalk: Anecdotal v. Scientific." American Handgunner, March/April 2000; p. 75

    Anecdotal versus Scientific? Ayoob relies upon anecdotal reports to make a living, so of course he's going to defend them. Unfortunately the "joke" is on Ayoob's readers, who make decisions based on inaccuracies and speculation he authoritatively presents as facts.

    In desperate attempt to vilify me, Ayoob deceitfully misrepresents my critique of his FBI-Miami shootout articles as a personal attack on Gordon McNeill and Edmundo Mireles:

    ...Ed Mireles and the late Gordon McNeill...came into the limelight through no intention of their own, but because they were deservedly acclaimed for the great valor and spirit they showed on 4/11/86. When Dodson snidely accuses them of falsehood by extention [sic], he goes too far.

    At one point in his strange screed, Dodson insists that McNeill's .357 S&W Combat Magnum was loaded with .38 Special ammunition. He may not have had access to the official FBI materials, but that's no excuse; Dodson makes frequent reference to my book "The Ayoob Files," so he has obviously read it. Therein, Mireles is quoted on his recollection of being able to distinguish between the "pops" of the .38s and 9mms, the louder reports of McNeill's Magnum rounds, and what he called "the psychologically devastating ka-boom" of cop-killer Michael Platt's .223 rifle.

    Dodson calls it a "falsehood" that Platt's accomplice Edward Matix sustained ear damage from Platt firing the .223 in direct proximity to his unprotected face. Gordon McNeill, far closer to the investigation than Dodson or his puppetmaster, said otherwise and was so quoted in "Ayoob Files."

    I may have to put up with Dodson's crap. But when he implicitly accuses these two genuine American heroes of "falsehoods," Dodson is contemptible and unforgivable.

    -(see Ayoob: “Dodson Response.”)

    Unfortunately for Ayoob, his phony moral condemnation is exposed by the very lawmen he tries to selfishly exploit. McNeill and Mireles personally reviewed Forensic Analysis; both endorse the report that Ayoob dismisses as “a speculative account.” Their written statements appear in Appendix III. McNeill testifies (p. 112):

    The report will serve as a model for all of law enforcement in the area of crime scene reconstruction and will finally set the record straight on one of the most significant and tragic events in FBI history. [emphasis added]

    I would like the reader to know that to the extent that was humanly possible, Dr. W. French Anderson’s research and conclusions are correct. There might be some slight variation in the sequence of some of the events as we know them, but to the extent possible, the events documented are, to my knowledge, correct. The reader needs to bear in mind that this event was reconstructed by Dr. Anderson ten years after the fact. Four out of the ten participants are dead. We will probably never really know exactly what all their actions were, but I agree with Dr. Anderson’s forensic analysis. [emphasis added]
    “An armed society is a polite society.”

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fountain Hills, Arizona
    Posts
    151
    And there's 5 minutes I'll never get back.
    If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Ayn Rand


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Valrico, FL
    Posts
    231
    And you came here to flame the guy because????
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. #4
    Was there a point to the rambling an incoherent diatribe against Mas Ayoob?

    I'm really sorry I wasted even 5 minutes trying to figure-out the purpose of this posting.

    I am dumber for having read it.
    NRA Life Member, US Army Veteran - 95 Bravo
    "A recent police study found that you're much more likely to get shot by a fat cop if you run." - Dennis Miller

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Eastern North Carolina
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by macmanjim View Post
    And there's 5 minutes I'll never get back.
    You must read faster than I do.

  7. #6
    I think the reason the article was written was the author was doing some research and found many untruths by the self-appointed expert. He seemed very disappointed in someone he previously had respected, listened to without question, and probably now felt a bit foolish for his sheep-like acceptance of Ayoob and may have been concerned that others were as deceived as he had been.

    It seems he was right. Many people have quoted Ayoob in these forums. Having seen a number of people request documentation that is never provided, I find it difficult to accept that those same people- those who otherwise seem to want truth- are so willing to accept someone on reputation without evidence of his actual expertise or truthfulness. I have done my best to provide another perspective and tangible evidence of this man’s misleading. I do not understand how some can still be so eager to defend him when his deceit is uncovered. I cannot do that. But if you can, I wish you all the best and will hope you eventually are able to accept the truth you say you genuinely prefer.
    “An armed society is a polite society.”

  8. #7
    Actually I would like to thank the OP as I was having a hard time getting ready for bed, but now I'm sleepy as hell! Thanks,
    Dennis in Idaho
    "Citizenship requires three boxes: "The Ballot Box,
    The Jury Box, and the Cartridge Box." Fredrick Douglas

  9. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Stan45 View Post
    I think the reason the article was written was the author was doing some research and found many untruths by the self-appointed expert. He seemed very disappointed in someone he previously had respected, listened to without question, and probably now felt a bit foolish for his sheep-like acceptance of Ayoob and may have been concerned that others were as deceived as he had been.

    It seems he was right. Many people have quoted Ayoob in these forums. Having seen a number of people request documentation that is never provided, I find it difficult to accept that those same people- those who otherwise seem to want truth- are so willing to accept someone on reputation without evidence of his actual expertise or truthfulness. I have done my best to provide another perspective and tangible evidence of this man’s misleading. I do not understand how some can still be so eager to defend him when his deceit is uncovered. I cannot do that. But if you can, I wish you all the best and will hope you eventually are able to accept the truth you say you genuinely prefer.
    You forget the all too pervasive truism of modern society: "ignorance is bliss". I appreciate getting such information, and thank you for providing it.

  10. #9
    Reply to Massad Ayoob's Kooky Screed
    -by Shawn Dodson
    Massad Ayoob, Shawn Dodson, Reply to Ayoob's Kooky Screed

    Part 2

    (Formerly restricted to law enforcement, Forensic Analysis is now available to the general public from Paladin Press.)

    Despite a claim to have carefully studied Forensic Analysis, Ayoob seems oblivious to its content. In addition, it appears he's attempting to imply that he had privileged access to "official FBI materials." If this is indeed the case, then why do FBI records disagree with his reports, as documented below?

    Ayoob speculates that an unnamed "mentor" and "puppetmaster" was somehow involved in producing my critique of his FBI Miami shootout reports.4, 6 His kooky, juvenile conjecture is incorrect. The buck stops here. I don't need help to sound the ******** alarm when I recognize ********. (If I need help with anything it’s my pathetic, road sign-like prose.)8

    Ayoob protests a “BS TV show” that McNeill, Mireles and John Hanlon personally appear in and who provide first-person testimony about their experiences on 11 April 1986. Their appearance and personal testimony were the reasons I included the presentation as a reference, but in October 2004, as a result of an online discussion with Ayoob’s gunwriter buddy, Dean Speir, I made a decision to remove it because it’s redundant and unnecessary.9 The premise of my critique is to compare Ayoob’s faulty “FBI Miami Shootout” reports to Anderson’s Forensic Analysis, which stands on its own merit and provides all the information needed to uncover Ayoob’s minefield of misinformation.

    "…I determined that I had only gotten one thing wrong…"

    -(see Ayoob: “Dodson Response.”)

    Ayoob can pose all he wants, but his pompous insistence that he’s correct in all but one minor detail regarding the FBI-Miami shootout is easily discredited by simple fact checking of sources he claims to have thoroughly consulted:

    Ayoob Claim

    False: “Silvertip .357 is authorized by the Bureau only for special circumstances, and it is believed that supervisor McNeill’s 2½" Combat Magnum was so charged.” (p. 193)
    "[Mireles] was able to clearly distinguish between what he described as the popping sound of agents’ 9mms and .38s, the bang of McNeill’s .357 Magnum rounds, and the ‘psychologically devastating ka-boom’ of Platt’s .223 rifle." (p. 220)

    Discredited By
    Anecdotal report not substantiated by forensic evidence
    FBI records show McNeill fired 6 rounds Winchester .38 Special +P 158gr LSWCHP from his S&W M19-3, .357 Magnum revolver. In addition, three .38 Special +P cartridges were loaded in the chamber of his revolver when it was recovered and examined. Finally, inventory of McNeill’s car, Buick LeSabre, license 516-DTK, revealed no Winchester .357 Magnum 145gr STHP ammunition within:
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf
    (Adobe Reader pp. 66 & 67)
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting2.pdf
    (Adobe Reader pp. 18 & 19)
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf
    (Adobe Reader p. 61)
    Metro-Dade PD records show nine .38 Special “casings” found at rear of McNeill’s car:

    Rivers, David, Sgt., Metro-Dade Police Dept: “Weapons Found at Scene.” (Forensic Analysis, Plate B, p. 8)

    Neither McNeill nor Mireles dispute Anderson’s statement, “6 rounds (38+P) fired,” (Forensic Analysis, pp. 13, 112-114, 119-127)

    Ayoob Claim
    False: “Meanwhile, Matix has squeezed out the driver’s door of the wrecked getaway car, and he unleashes a blast of 00 buckshot at Grogan and Dove to pin them down.” (p. 199)

    Discredited By
    FBI records show that Matix’s shotgun was loaded with Winchester #6 birdshot:

    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf (Adobe Reader pp. 66 & 67)

    FBI records show spent #6 birdshot recovered from Grogan/Dove’s vehicle:

    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf (Adobe Reader p. 57)


    Ayoob Claim
    False: “The buckshot has smashed into [Platt’s] face... but it has come in from a side angle, and no pellet has reached his brain.” (p. 202)

    Discredited By
    No evidence that buckshot "smashed into Platt's face." Autopsy report (Forensic Analysis, pp. 97-105):
    Case No. 86-0969: autopsy report for PLATT, Michael L., prepared by Jay S. Barnhart, Jr, M.D., Associate Medical Examiner, Dade County Medical Examiner, dated 25 April 1986, 8 pages

    Ayoob Claim
    False: “Mireles’ fourth blast and his fifth, blows out the windshield of the Buick. Matix twists in agony as he is hit by the pellets.” (p. 203)

    Discredited By
    No evidence that Matix was hit by any buckshot. Autopsy report (Forensic Analysis, pp. 90-96):
    Case No. 86-0968: autopsy report for MATIX, William, prepared by Jay S. Barnhart, Jr, M.D., Associate Medical Examiner, Dade County Medical Examiner, dated 25 April 1986, 7 pages

    Ayoob Claim
    False: “And behind the wheel, his face a bloody mask...." (p. 203)

    Discredited By
    Crime scene photo (Forensic Analysis, Plate IV-F, p. 84) of Platt’s body laying on ground, face up, does not agree with Ayoob’s dramatic, fabricated description.

    Ayoob Claim
    False: "[Mireles] concentrates on the face of the copkiller at the end of the tunnel, and on his front sight, and even in broad daylight there is the flash as the Federal 158 grain lead hollowpoint .38 slug roars from the barrel of his gun and into the brain of the murderer Platt." (p. 204)

    Discredited By
    Autopsy report
    Autopsy x-ray (Forensic Analysis, Figure IV-4, p. 71) of Platt’s head shows no projectiles penetrated the brain
    FBI records show that Mireles’ revolver was loaded with Winchester ammunition:
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf
    (Adobe Reader pp. 66 & 67)

    Ayoob Claim
    False: "[McNeill] adds that he learned later that both Matix’ eardrums had been ruptured by his partner’s gunfire. (p. 214)

    Discredited By
    Anecdotal report not substantiated by forensic evidence
    Autopsy report: examination revealed no evidence of Matix having suffered ruptured eardrums:
    EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:…No blood is in the ear canals. The conjunctivae have no petechiae and the irides are blue and the pupils are round and equal and 4 millimeters in diameter….


    Ayoob Claim
    False: “[Mireles’] first shot had mangled the foot of the cop-killer, and the last three rounds of 12-pellet 00-buck smashed into Platt’s maxillofacial structure and also tore into the face of Matix. One pellet entered Matix’ brain." (p. 221)

    Discredited By
    Autopsy reports
    Autopsy x-ray (Forensic Analysis, Figure IV-4, p. 71) of Platt’s head shows no projectiles having collided with or damaged the maxillofacial structure
    Autopsy x-ray (Forensic Analysis, Figure IV-17, p. 76) of Matix’s head shows no projectiles penetrated the brain

    Ayoob Claim
    False: "...Dove fired 27 pistol shots and scored only one hit, and Grogan fired close to 20 with no hits." (p. 222)

    Discredited By
    FBI records show that Dove fired 20 rounds; Grogan fired nine:
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting2.pdf
    (Adobe Reader pp. 18)
    http://foia.fbi.gov/shooting/shooting1a.pdf
    (Adobe Reader pp. 66 & 67)

    Ayoob seems to think I’ve read his book, The Ayoob Files. He shouldn’t flatter himself. I merely verified photocopies of two FBI Miami shootout chapters taken from his book, that were provided to me by another person, to ensure the book was consistent with the magazine articles. I critiqued the reports presented in the book because it appeared to me, at the time, that it would be easier for interested readers to get hold of his book than two aging magazine articles. I have no reason to believe any given shooting incident report or “stopping power” claim Ayoob makes is true, as I shall continue to show.

    Where’s the Brain?
    In 1993, American Handgunner published Ayoob’s acrimonious reply to a letter from Martin L. Fackler, M.D., in which Fackler challenged assertions made by Ayoob in an article he'd written about the JFK assassination. Among several questionable claims, Ayoob’s conclusion is particularly worthy of scrutiny:


    "…the head shot in frame 313 of the Zapruder film is totally incongruous with what the 6.5 Carcano ball round is known to do."

    -Ayoob, Massad: "Where's the Brain." American Handgunner, 17(105): July/August 1993; pp. 12, 15.

    Ayoob’s declaration is absolutely untrue.

    Ayoob’s declaration is absolutely untrue.
    Ayoob is obviously conversant with Lattimer’s 1980 book; in his reply to Fackler he's able to cite information buried in a single sentence on page 271. Yet Lattimer’s Figure 91, Skull Bullets,10 not only proves Ayoob wrong it exemplifies the shameless extent of his blatant dishonesty. (It appears Ayoob knew few of his readers had access to an obscure, out of print book; and of those that did, there was no mass media means to reveal his deceit. In addition, his status with the popular gun press ensured he would have the last word in replying to any criticism. However with the arrival of the Internet there are no more secrets; valid and verifiable evidence to challenge and expose misinformation can now be easily presented to a mass audience. It is no longer possible to hide behind editors and exploit limitations of the print media to betray unsuspecting readers for the purpose of protecting one's own ego and importance.)

    In response to Ayoob’s nonsense, Lattimer published a detailed summary of the findings reported in his book. I present an extract from his summary, which appears after the References/Endnotes section of this reply, that describes the mechanics of JFK’s fatal head wound. (The information presented in the extract also appears in Lattimer’s book, Kennedy and Lincoln: Medical and Ballistic Comparisons of their Assassinations, albeit in a less concise format.)

    In a situation that bears striking similarity to his unscrupulous Hansen testimony, an earlier magazine article comes back to bite Ayoob in the a$$. Five months prior to "Where's the Brain?” Ayoob published the following:

    Modern formulations of ballistic gelatin based on Fackler’s formula are extremely convenient for the experimenter, and they do indeed simulate the resistance to a bullet that would occur in the muscle tissue of a pig, which in turn closely replicates the muscle tissue of a man. Unfortunately, there are also shortcomings.

    We do not shoot at the muscles. We shoot at the internal organs and do so through various intervening bodily structures. One problem with gelatin is that it is homogeneous and gives the bullet a smoothly consistent resistance throughout its path that will not occur in the human body.


    The mammalian body is heterogeneous. In a tiny fraction of a second, the bullet goes through stretchy epidermis [sic], then the fibrous elasticity of muscle tissue, then perhaps the plastic density of a solid abdominal organ like the liver or spleen, and along the way it may have crashed through rigid resistance of bone. Each of these obstacles offers a different resistance to the bullet than does any homogeneous medium, and this can drastically alter the performance of the projectile in terms of both deceleration and deformation, thus radically altering the degree and the profile of the tissue damage that will now be caused. [emphasis added]

    These variables need to be considered. They aren’t found in gelatin. They are found in medical reports of surviving gunshot victims and in the autopsy protocols conducted upon those who did not survive. Combined with involved personnel’s observations of exactly what the individual did immediately after being shot, we have the “anecdotal” data relied upon by Marshall and his followers. [emphasis added]

    -Ayoob, Massad: “Stopping Power: A Look at the Current Controversy.” Handguns, February 1993; pp. 28–32, 87.

    Thus, in February’s Handguns, Ayoob carefully explains several "shortcomings" of ordnance gelatin testing, but in the July/August issue of American Handgunner, Ayoob disingenuously contradicts himself; a block of gelatin is now so flawless it proves JFK wasn’t shot in the head with a 6.5mm Carcano bullet! In pathetic effort to present the appearance of winning a debate (which is apparently more important to Ayoob than the truth) he deceitfully attempts to misrepresent Fackler’s wound profile:

    "Dr. Fackler’s suggestion is incongruous in that it is completely refuted and contradicted by his own earlier work….

    "Fackler’s workup of the 6.5mm Carcano roundnose bullet indicates that it will penetrate 106cm (41+”) of flesh simulant…."

    -(see Ayoob: "Where's the Brain.")

    Indeed, one cannot dispute that Fackler’s wound profile illustration shows that the 6.5mm Carcano FMJ bullet produces minimal soft tissue disruption. However as shown by Lattimer, its performance in the JFK head wound is entirely consistent with a rifle bullet that strikes bone early in its wound path: it fragmented. Bone not only affects a bullet's terminal performance characteristics it can also complicate wounding effects (or as Ayoob declared: "this can drastically alter the performance of the projectile in terms of both deceleration and deformation, thus radically altering the degree and the profile of the tissue damage that will now be caused."). Fackler's bare gelatin wound profile represents uncomplicated wounding effects involving soft tissues only. Projectile/bone/soft tissue interaction are not depicted in Fackler’s bare gelatin wound profile. A block of bare gelatin in no way represents a human head. Yet Ayoob deceitfully attempts to convince his readers that it does, in total disregard of his claims to the opposite in Handguns just a few months earlier.

    (Note: an extract from an article by Duncan MacPherson that confronts misconceptions about differences in soft tissue densities, as related to homogeneous ordnance gelatin testing, appears after the References/Endnotes section of this reply.)
    “An armed society is a polite society.”

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fountain Hills, Arizona
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by billwot View Post
    You must read faster than I do.
    Evelyn Wood helps.
    If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right. Ayn Rand


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast