Creative Speculation
In reply to the discussion: Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all]arguille
(60 posts)"you attempt to support your claim with an "appeal to authority" fallacy"
the "appeal to authority" fallacy comes into play when one of the following two factors is absent:
The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.
In this case, an expert or authority has been put forth, namely Sherry Fiester. She has several decades experience as a Certified Crime Scene Investigator, and has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation in numerous districts, and also instructs on these matters. Her concepts pertaining to the effects of bullet strikes are widely shared by her colleagues and the science on which these concepts are based appear in medical textbooks used widely.
So, clearly, the "appeal to authority fallacy" is not in play in any of my comments.
Is it too cruel to point out that you, "Wm Seger", have used a paper to support your views that you described as true or real physics, discussing wound ballistics, but written by an atmospheric physicist with no legitimate expert support. And that you also challenged the views of the top ballistics expert of the era who conducted extensive replicated tests which showed the single bullet theory to be ridiculous - you challenged him with the results of a vague experiment conducted by J Edgar Hoover's urologist.
Really. Have you no shame.
Oh, wait. You're a propagandist. You have no shame.