Creative Speculation

> 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 the first place, your definition is wrong. The "appeal to authority" fallacy is an argument of this from: X says P is true; X is an authority; therefore, P is true." That's the exact form of the argument you are making.

In the second place, both of your "factors" are absent, because you persist in disingenuously misrepresenting the "P" actually under discussion. It is the 2.5" snap of JFK's head seen in the Zapruder film, not a gel block "swelling or moving minutely into the force" a couple of millimeters for a couple of milliseconds. Again, you have not yet presented any evidence of any "authority" demonstrating that JFK's head could snap 2.5" toward the gun, or even attempting to explain any such phenomenon, so the assertion that there a "consensus among legitimate experts" that such an imaginary phenomenon explains what we see in the Zapruder film is abject bullshit.

> 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.

Is it too cruel to point out to you. "arguille", that the physics discussed in the paper are accessible to the average high school student? Here, you are completely ignoring both the logic and simple math of the paper and instead making the equally fallacious converse of the appeal to authority fallacy: X says P is true; X is not an expert; therefore P is not true. And again, you ignore that the paper actually addresses the 2.5" snap with real physics, whereas you have presented absolutely nothing that actually does that.

Furthermore, you apparently hope that all this smoke you're blowing will hide what we all can clearly see in the two gifs I posted, which is that both common sense and the "atmospheric physicist" are correct, while your bizarre interpretation of what a "ballistics expert" says is simply nonsense:



> Really. Have you no shame.
> Oh, wait. You're a propagandist. You have no shame.

And you are a Grade A Hypocrite, but let's stick to actual argument for just a while longer:

1. Do you or do you not actually have an "expert" who can either explain or demonstrate how JFK's head could possibly snap 2.5" toward the gun? So far, you haven't even shown that your claimed expert is even aware of that snap, much less has an explanation for it.

2. Can you or can you not explain why that yet-to-be-presented theory fails to explain what we clearly see in the two gifs?

3. Have you ever heard of the "first rule of holes?"