There are some great arguments and points made in these threads, which should be carefully pondered for any situation, but PLEASE do not call upon the so called oracle box o truth...their shoddy experimental methods and lack of repetition generally render their so-called experiments mildly interesting, but proof of nothing. Throw it out MODS, if not to the point, just tired of seeing the reference!
Please! Not the Box o Truth!
- Thread starter Jst1mr
- Start date
- Status
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Anything else you would like, Mr. Dictator? 
Don't grip until you do your own scientific experiments for us to refer to. I think some conclusion *can* be drawn from box o truth testing.
Don't grip until you do your own scientific experiments for us to refer to. I think some conclusion *can* be drawn from box o truth testing.ZeSpectre
Member
Ibtl!
Aaryq
Member
Ooh. Jumping IBTL.
cambeul41
Member
The Box O' Truth - Disclaimer as can be found at http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/disclaimer.htm
Some negative comments require me to make some clarifications regarding the Box O' Truth experiments.
Some negative comments require me to make some clarifications regarding the Box O' Truth experiments.
- I am not a high dollar laboratory. I use "poor-boy" test methods.
- While I try to maintain some scientific soundness in my tests, they are certainly not "scientifically perfect".
- To have "scientifically perfect" tests would involve many, many controls and repeatability issues. I have neither the time, money, nor inclination to do such tests.
- I am shooting things, taking pictures, and recording what I see. I do this for both my enjoyment and entertainment and for my friends.
- I am not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just having fun and recording what I observe.
- I am not recommending any brand or caliber of ammo based upon my observations.
- If you disagree with what I observe, fine with me. But this is my site.
- It's fun to shoot stuff.
- Do not try to copy thesetypes of experiments yourself. If you are injured, it is your sole responsibility and I will not be held responsible for any damage or injuries.
I don't see the point of denigrating the Box of Truth without getting specific about what your objections are. This is especially true if you don't offer any thing of substance to replace what you find objectionable.
Sorry, your post set off my hot air detector.
Sorry, your post set off my hot air detector.
You take the experiments for what they are worth. If they don't meet up to your standards than fine but bashing an interesting website by some seemingly very nice and interesting people shows a serious lack of class. What is the point?? Are you suggesting some alternative? Are YOU doing something better? Probably not.
I happen to really like that website and I have it bookmarked as a favorite. You can find a lot of info there that isn't available anywhere else. I personally think they do a fine job with what they have nad they claim to be no more than they are. Thats more than I can say for so many other of the "so called" scientific sites.
I happen to really like that website and I have it bookmarked as a favorite. You can find a lot of info there that isn't available anywhere else. I personally think they do a fine job with what they have nad they claim to be no more than they are. Thats more than I can say for so many other of the "so called" scientific sites.
kingpin008
Member
Wow, is it Useless Post Day already? Shows how on top of things I am lately.
I think it's true that Box o' Truth experiments shouldn't be taken as the one and only truth because real life circumstances will never be the same as any kind of testing and experimentation. However, their experiments are usually informative in a general nature about the performance of various types of guns and ammunition. Obviously shooting jugs of water doesn't give you a perfect example of how that ammunition will work on people but it does give you a way to compare, in a relative way, one type of ammunition versus another. Like the Judge experiment, we learned that .410 ammo doesn't have nearly as much oomph as the .45 Colt does. We don't know from the experiment exactly how well both rounds would work on a bad guy but at least we can see the .410 would not be a top performer.
In the end, we know that, like any testing, the results must be carefully considered in their own context and we can't assume the results will always be the exact same in the real world.
In the end, we know that, like any testing, the results must be carefully considered in their own context and we can't assume the results will always be the exact same in the real world.
bogie
Member
Gratuitous post count increase.
So, what do you think works best on trolls? The .45, the 9mm, the .223, the .308, or backing off and nuking them from orbit?
So, what do you think works best on trolls? The .45, the 9mm, the .223, the .308, or backing off and nuking them from orbit?
Old School
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 307
I will take box o' truth tests over opinion based speculation with out a second thought.
D
Deleted member 66305
Guest
bogie said:
It's the only way to be sure.
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
I anxiously await the link to your site providing meticulously executed cross-sectional and longitudinal studies with sufficient sample sizes to reach at 99% confidence level. I think you've identified a niche that is waiting to be filled and look forward to see the results of your efforts.
ZeSpectre
Member
but you know what, I'll take an opinion based on spending some ammo and making some smoke over someone who just has an opinion and nothing else.
Gospel? Nah. Useful? yup.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
How do we know for a fact BrassFetchers Jello thermometer was calibrated by
the National Bureau of Standards recently?
Aha!
I thought so!
rcmodel
the National Bureau of Standards recently?
Aha!
I thought so!
rcmodel
Telumehtar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 58
This is what is called Ad Hominem attack. By trying to discredit the source, you attempt to discredit the results without actually debating the methods, logic, procedures and conclusions that were used/attained.
It is in my opinion one of the weakest types of attacks, and does little to prove your point, and more to sway arguments into name calling fests.
If their experiments are shoddy, non-scientific, and inconclusive then point out the problems in their methodology, logic and procedures. If their conclusions are wrong, state that they are wrong, and point out why.
That is the hallmark of intelligent scientific debate. Not smearing the "the man" aka Ad Hominem attack.
It is in my opinion one of the weakest types of attacks, and does little to prove your point, and more to sway arguments into name calling fests.
If their experiments are shoddy, non-scientific, and inconclusive then point out the problems in their methodology, logic and procedures. If their conclusions are wrong, state that they are wrong, and point out why.
That is the hallmark of intelligent scientific debate. Not smearing the "the man" aka Ad Hominem attack.
markk
Member
I prefer the Ignore Function...
Flintlock Tom
Member
Let's see, counting mine, the opinions are running 20-1 in favor.
That sounds like a fairly comprehensive statistic to me.
That sounds like a fairly comprehensive statistic to me.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
*rising to the bait*
It's patently obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention that the methodology used over at The Box o' Truth is somewhat shadetree in nature.
The results are interesting, sometimes noteworthy, but should not be given the same weight as testing conducted by, say, HP White Labs.
BoT is a guy doing some testing in his spare time. Nothing more, and nothing less. I certainly don't see where he has ever misrepresented his website and tests as anything other than this.
It's patently obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention that the methodology used over at The Box o' Truth is somewhat shadetree in nature.
The results are interesting, sometimes noteworthy, but should not be given the same weight as testing conducted by, say, HP White Labs.
BoT is a guy doing some testing in his spare time. Nothing more, and nothing less. I certainly don't see where he has ever misrepresented his website and tests as anything other than this.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
I don't either.
And I imagine his Home Depot sheet-rock, car doors, and water jugs are very similar to mine.
And don't require calibration to see the results.
The guy is just doing stuff the rest of us have done, or would like to do, at one time or another!
Give him a break!
rcmodel
bigfatdave
Member
TBoT may not be perfect ...
... but I like it. The policy of being skeptical about advertising claims, rumors, and assumptions is a good one, and if their experiments aren't perfectly controlled, at least TBoT asks questions rather than simply trusting folklore / reading the catalog.
Complain all you want, but if you want to debunk TBoT, publish better experiments and allow peer review.
... but I like it. The policy of being skeptical about advertising claims, rumors, and assumptions is a good one, and if their experiments aren't perfectly controlled, at least TBoT asks questions rather than simply trusting folklore / reading the catalog.
Complain all you want, but if you want to debunk TBoT, publish better experiments and allow peer review.
- Status