Creative Speculation

"Wm Seger", you don't understand the appeal to authority fallacy. The formula "X says P is true; X is an authority; therefore, P is true" is a fallacy ONLY after:

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.

It was shown that both of the above factors are adequately covered, and therefore there is no fallacy to criticize.

It was then , cruelly, shown that, in fact, the appeal to authority fallacy appearing in this thread is found solely, and in at least two instances, in your own posts.

"you persist in disingenuously misrepresenting the "P" actually under discussion. It is the 2.5" snap of JFK's head..."

That is completely incorrect. I brought forth Fiester's work - particularly Chapter 7 of her book which deals specifically in detail with the forward snap, and which argues, based on contemporary ballistic science, that the quick forward movement followed by the
sharp movement back into the seat was indicative of a shot from the front. And then she backs up the science behind this claim with excerpts from medical literature which say the same thing.

"you ignore that the paper actually addresses the 2.5" snap with real physics, whereas you have presented absolutely nothing that actually does that..."

Again, the physics paper you cite was written by a man who specializes in atmospheric physics and not ballistic science. The ballistic scientists quoted by Fiester, all credentialed people, say that ballistic science says that the shot likely came from the front.

"both common sense and the "atmospheric physicist" are correct, while your bizarre interpretation of what a "ballistics expert" says is simply nonsense"

But I haven't interpreted anything. I've reported what Fiester says in her book, which is backed up by credentialed ballistic scientists and the specific information also appears in textbooks.

"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."

Well, obviously, you have made yet another completely incorrect statement. I have provided an expert, and even a consensus of legitimate experts, and you have presented your denial of that.

From Fiester "Enemy Of The Truth"

"Current forensic research indicates the forward movement of Kennedy’s head follow by a rearward movement is consistent with a single gunshot to the head from the front. Research by Karger (2008), Radford, (2009) and Coupland (2011) prove initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. This phenomenon is readily observed in internet videos depicting high-speed recordings of ballistic gelatin, and explained in forensic research that addresses wound ballistics."

Fiester notes that the greater the velocity of the shot, the more pronounced the forward movement. The gelatin block in the video is obviously fixed in place to facilitate the filming, and so any attempt to compare it to a human body is meaningless. The phenomenon which Fiester is referring is the bulge back towards the source of the shot just as the bullet enters. "Real physics" might suggest that such a phenomenon would result in the forward snap as seen in the Zapruder film. 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.