Z zentao New member Nov 1, 1999 #1 Firearms Tactical Institiute (www.firearmstactical.com) posted data today which show some significant discrepancies in Marshall-Sanow data base. Any comments on it? Zentao
Firearms Tactical Institiute (www.firearmstactical.com) posted data today which show some significant discrepancies in Marshall-Sanow data base. Any comments on it? Zentao
B BrokenArrow New member Nov 1, 1999 #2 They have proof of mistakes, not fraud. They have proof that M&S are sloppy mathematicians, proofreaders, and may have sloppy editors too. They do not have proof they lied. Reasonable doubt? It does not fit, I must acquit. OTOH, if they gave their work to others for peer review, this kind of stuff gets shaken out early. Why it's a good idea? ------------------ >>>>---->
They have proof of mistakes, not fraud. They have proof that M&S are sloppy mathematicians, proofreaders, and may have sloppy editors too. They do not have proof they lied. Reasonable doubt? It does not fit, I must acquit. OTOH, if they gave their work to others for peer review, this kind of stuff gets shaken out early. Why it's a good idea? ------------------ >>>>---->
C ChuteTheMall New member Nov 2, 1999 #3 If anyone has a few hundred goats to spare we could attempt to replicate the Strasbourg tests, which may or may not have occurred.
If anyone has a few hundred goats to spare we could attempt to replicate the Strasbourg tests, which may or may not have occurred.