Replies

BTW: I noticed that you completely ignored Dr. Andrew Welchman and his team from the University of Birmingham.

Apparently literacy is not your strong suit either:

"We placed pairs of participants in competition with each other to make a series of button presses. Within-subject analysis of movement times revealed a 10 per cent benefit for ****reactive**** actions. This was maintained when opponents performed dissimilar actions, and when participants competed against a computer, suggesting that the effect is not related to facilitation produced by action observation. Rather, faster ballistic movements may be a general property of ****reactive**** motor control, potentially providing a useful means of promoting survival."

In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of Lewinski's claims. That's because it was done by a team of real scientists.

Or in laymen's terms, scientists have demonstrated that the person REACTING to a gun draw has about a 10% advantage in time than the person who draws first.

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php

These findings would seem to largely discredit the claims about the Tueller drill, and more importantly all the police tactics and procedures based on it.

"We placed pairs of participants in competition with each other to make a series of button presses. Within-subject analysis of movement times revealed a 10 per cent benefit for ****reactive**** actions. This was maintained when opponents performed dissimilar actions, and when participants competed against a computer, suggesting that the effect is not related to facilitation produced by action observation. Rather, faster ballistic movements may be a general property of ****reactive**** motor control, potentially providing a useful means of promoting survival." In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of Lewinski's claims. That's because it was done by a team of real scientists.

DID YOU READ YOU IGNORANT FOOL? Welchman found that those initiating the action almost always beat the one reacting in the gunfight.

Dr Welchman explained that it took around 200 milliseconds to respond to what an opponent was doing, so, in a gunfight, the 21 millisecond reactionary advantage would be unlikely to save you. WHICH IS THE POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING FROM THE BEGINNING, and which is the exact same point that Lewinski makes time and time again.

You just utterly destroyed everything that you've been rambling about in this thread, "PW."