Martin Fackler, former editor of the out of print
Wound Ballistics Review,
published negativereviews of these findings [FAC91a, FAC96a].However, his critical reviews have been shownto contain exaggerations, logical fallacies, andscientific errors [COC06a].For example, Fackler asserts that Suneson'sfindings are invalid because lithotripsy(ultrasonic kidney stone treatment) applies alarge pressure wave without damaging tissue.However, pressure waves associated withlithotripsy have been shown to cause significanttissue injury [EWL98, LOS01, LKK03].In addition, remote brain injury attributed to aballistic pressure wave has also been found in asimilar experiment in dogs. Independentscientists concluded [WWZ04]:
These findings correspond well to the results of Suneson et al.,and confirmed that distant effect exists in the central nervoussystem after a high-energy missile impact to an extremity. Ahigh-frequency oscillating pressure wave with large amplitudeand short duration was found in the brain after the extremityimpact of a high-energy missile . . .
These animal models provide compellingsupport for the pressure wave hypothesis.
V.Animal models of incapacitation
The largest available data set quantifyinghandgun bullet incapacitation in animal testsubjects (goats) [STR93] shows that averageincapacitation time correlates strongly withballistic pressure wave magnitude [COC06c].A model for average incapacitation time interms of peak pressure wave magnitude, p, is:
p ps p AIT
is an adjustable parameter that givesan average incapacitation time of 10 seconds.A least-squares fit gives p
= 482 PSI with astandard error of 1.64 s and a correlationcoefficient of R = 0.91. A plot of AIT(p) isshown in Figure 1 along with the data.
051015202530354045500 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
T i m e ( s e c o n d s )
Pressure (PSI)Average Incapacitation Time vs. Peak Pressure Wave Magnitude
Figure 1: A plot of average incapacitation time vs. pressure for the Strasbourg tests, along with the best-fit model.
Fackler has also criticized this data set[FAC94a, FAC97a]. Without any eyewitness,documentary, or physical evidence showingfraud, he uses the opinion of a group of expertsto assert that the report is fraudulent [FAC94a]:
The FBI committee, which includes a half dozen of the world’smost highly regarded gunshot-expert forensic pathologists, felt that the organization and wording of the document betrayed it as a hoax. Why else would experimental results be circulated anonymously?
In a self-contradiction, these six "experts" arenot named. The FBI committee remainsanonymous while stating anonymity as thecriterion used to determine that the Strasbourgreport is a hoax!
Fackler’s review also contains numerousfallacies leading a review to conclude[COC06a]:
In the absence of support or direct contradiction from other experiments, the veracity of the Strasbourg tests should fairly
In the history of science, there are a number of examples ofanonymous publication. Anonymity is not generally considereda conclusive indication of fraud [COC06a].