Is this how you ignore me Larry???...
I thank those who've made positive contributions to the topic.
Those who lack the intelligence and/or education that would enable them to read the title of a topic, and who lack significant scientific training but yet who claim to be able to debunk "junk science" . . . well, they can be noisy, but about all one can do is laugh and ignore them.
Wrong again Larry. I'm plenty intelligent and educated enough to know that my comments were not the topic of your thread. I said that earlier, but I'll reproduce it below for you in bold colored type since you still have reading comprehension problems. It can be tough to read when your head is planted up your posterior.
Hey Larry, Woof woof! How about showing us where I ever once held up either my opinions or my observations as good science. Sorry for pissing on your thread, but when you go around telling lies about me, I feel this need to clear the air.
I'd say nice try Larry, but you're doing no better than Ed Good.
Also, I never said that I had the expertise to debunk the multitude of junk science on lead ammunition, even though I apparently have a lot more scientific training than you. I'm not doing any science on lead ammunition... just reading it, which is obviously more than you can do. I said I had the brains to critically analyze agenda driven crap that would never stand as science by anyone who knew what good science was. I gave you numerous examples, but you would rather tell lies about me and attempt to discredit me. All of your vast CIA Analyst and ballistics experience wasn't enough for you to explain how tiny dust sized particles of lead penetrated up to 2-3 FEET from the wound channel, according to Dr. William Cormatzer in his ND study, as but one example. And true to form, you can't man-up and admit being wrong, nor can you ignore me. What a pathetic joke.