Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP

[William Seger]

155. I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do

Your pointless repetition of failed arguments is becoming rather boring. Would you please either address these videos or stop wasting my time:



The quote from Fiester is the very reason that I say she seems to be oblivious to the fact that there was a 2.5" forward head-snap that needs to be explained, and the videos of a gel block "swell(ing) or mov(ing) minutely into the force" simply reinforces that impression. You say (but haven't demonstrated), that somewhere else she does address that snap, but it really doesn't matter: If she actually does think that's what would happen, the videos above prove that she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about -- which, I have to assume, is why you are so determined to not even acknowledge their existence.

The "appeal to authority" fallacy -- which I accurately defined and which you persist in offering as an argument anyway -- is a logical fallacy even if the person offering the opinion is an "authority," because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises, which is because even "authorities" can be wrong. (As Carl Sagan liked to say, there are no authorities in science.) But if that "authority" offers counter-intuitive claims that are easily refuted by actual experiments, as I have shown, and the best you can do is keep asserting the same fallacy, then "bullshit" would be a more accurate characterization than "fallacy."

You have presented nothing whatsoever that addresses that forward snap -- neither a demonstration of it nor a logical reason why any sane person would expect it to be back toward the gun. Showing a gel block swell a couple of millimeters while the bullet is still passing through it and causing a hydraulic shock wave falls absurdly short of what's required, and your mindless repetition of your logical fallacy does absolutely nothing to address that shortcoming. If you're going to persist in pretending that it does, then I see no reason to waste any more time trying to explain why it does not. If you post that "swell or move minutely" nonsense again without addressing the glaring lack of actual substance in your argument and again ignore the above videos, then I will simply post them again without comment. If you just wanna play "last post wins" I bet I will win, but I'm sure the whole board would prefer that you either actually address the actual issue with something resembling a cogent argument, or please stop wasting everyone's time simply pretending to.

> It also explains the rapid movement back into the seat which everyone can see. Proponents of "shot from rear" do not readily have a convincing explanation of why Kennedy's body would be driven back into the seat which such force.

Abject bullshit, and more pointless repetition of a failed argument while completely avoiding the refutation that's already been presented. You have not produced any demonstration or logical reason for why momentum from a bullet would wait 1/6 second before taking effect, and then cause the head to accelerate over several frames. Nor will you ever be able to, because it's absurd. If you don't understand why that's so, then apparently you didn't pay attention in high school physics. As I said, I believe the most plausible explanation for the back-and-to-the-left movement is a muscle spasm, but it isn't really necessary to identify the cause to conclusively say that it was not caused by momentum from the bullet, because momentum transfer (and thus the acceleration from it) would be instantaneous and could only happen while the bullet was passing through the head.

If this is the best you can do, I believe MrMickeysMom needs to send for reinforcements.