Miller, I'm still without the Thomas book, but I believe you are correct in stating that Thomas did not actually conduct the tests himself. My error for saying he "ran" them. Simply reported on them in his book.

As to your Alliant quote . . . well, if you want to prove my point, please post the information! Once more . . . as you pointed out, Alliant was comparing the "new" powder to THEIR OWN long-time best seller. That's a bit like Ford saying "The Edsel is a better car than a Ford, so why not buy one?" Competing with THEIR OWN brand, which does not seem to gain them much in terms of economic advantage. Now if Ford touts the Edsel over the Pontiac and the Desoto, then you have a different story: competing companies. So unless Alliant is comparing to something offered by a competitor, like Hodgdon, I fail to see they have much of an axe to grind--at least not in terms of economic benefit--by getting shooters to switch from, say, Green Dot or Red Dot to the new, improved Purple Dot.

As for studying ballistics, I believe that Thomas--whose training was as an engineer--also did that for a very long time. The simple answer is that, when "proof" is not available in the form of mathematical formulae etc, some experts reach one conclusion; others, another. Some scientists believe in God; others don't.