My, my, oh my, how you like to put words in people's mouths.
STRAWMAN ARGUMENT - an illegitimate debating technique in which one party restates the position of the opponents attributing provably false assumptions to opponents that they are NOT arguing so one can knock down the false assumption.
My one erroneous assumption was that you are an honest debater and can read.
You obviously CAN'T read and by posting a false statement of my position, you are not honest!
WHO told you that I assumed the "massive fireball" was the initiating event??? To assume that would be to ignore the evidence, the statements of the witnesses, and the science.
Anyone who reads the eyewitness testemony of those who saw the entire event and looked at the reports would find that the initiating event was one or two white flash, high explosive, high velocity ordnance like detonations... followed some seconds later (not an insignificant amount of time), by the ORANGE, deflagration of the fuel/air mix of the "massive fireball". Why don't you look at the handdrawn diagram Mike Wire made to show what he saw??? The "Massive Fireball" IS shown much lower in the sky than the intercept point of the ascending contrail and TWA-800.
"In the real world the Trial Court is presided over by an expert, the Judge..."
That's a good one. I can show you Superior Court judges whose only claim to expertise is the fact they were college mates of the Governor of a state... and Federal Court judges whose expertise is more political than judicial. Many judges are judges soley because they cannot make it in private practice and are willing to work for the $110,000 a judge makes! You were aware that judges are often reversed for ERRORS, aren't you?
"Juries are not supposed to let "their life experiences, education, and knowledge from other sources" influence their decision - but in the real world they often do. In that event, however, it may be grounds for a new trial."
Only in your world. I have served on four criminal juries and have been the foreman of our County's Criminal Grand Jury for a year. In EACH of those trial instances both the judge and the contending counsels TOLD the jury to apply their knowledge, experiences and common sense in weighing and evaluating the testimony and evidence. Your ideal jury would be made up of 26 year olds who had just come out of a 20 year coma!
The rest of your response is just more obfuscation and demands that I take on the role of prosecutor or investigator, and then denigrating me when I cannot take on those roles.
You and all the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats made the same "logical error" at the outset of the investigation, the ASSUMPTIONS [1] that the streak of light seen by many witnesses was the ascending fiery exhaust of a missile in flight and [2] that the Massive Fireball was the Initiating Event when "the missile" intercepted the airliner. Therefore, it became your duty as Patriots to prove you were right. Therefore, those who disagreed with your interpretation of the witness reports are government agent disinformationalists engaged in the felonious criminal coverup of a heinous crime, the missile shootdown of TWA Flight 800.
"WHO told you that I assumed the "massive fireball" was the initiating event??? To assume that would be to ignore the evidence, the statements of the witnesses, and the science. Anyone who reads the eyewitness testemony of those who saw the entire event and looked at the reports would find that the initiating event was one or two white flash, high explosive, high velocity ordnance like detonations... followed some seconds later (not an insignificant amount of time), by the ORANGE, deflagration of the fuel/air mix of the 'massive fireball'." [emphasis added - caps your]
More textbook examples of your Circular Logic. NONE of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats have ever been able to prove that the streak of light ascended, much less that it was missile exhaust or that it preceded the Initiating Event or that it was "a missile" or that there were ANY "ordnance" explosions.
What is it you don't understand about "at the outset of the investigation"?
WHEN did the first actual "witness reports" become publicly available? What are the dates of "the most detailed witness reports" you've indicated would determine your selection of the witnesses you refuse to identify but contend should have testified at the NTSB Hearing in Baltimore?
"Using our knowledge of how shoulder launch missiles perform, let's examine what a hypothetical missile attack would've looked like. The rocket motor of the missile would be visible and it would look like a light ascending rapidly for about 8 seconds. Then the motor would burn out and the light would disappear for as much as 7 seconds. After this, a second streak of light, the airplane in crippled flight would become visible. It would be different from the first streak moving slower, then it would develop into a fireball. We carefully reviewed the witness accounts to determine if anyone described a scenario like this, one that began with two sequential streaks of light and concluded with a fireball. We could not find anyone who was describing this scenario. [emphasis added] SOURCE.
The credibility of you and all the rest of the "shootdown" tinfoil hats self destructed long ago and ALL the allegations of the tinfoil hats have been suspect unless or until proven otherwise since - including your own about jury duty and the Judges' instructions.
"The rest of your response is just more obfuscation and demands that I take on the role of prosecutor or investigator, and then denigrating me when I cannot take on those roles."
How would you describe - " . . . followed some seconds later (not an insignificant amount of time), by the ORANGE, deflagration of the fuel/air mix of the "massive fireball"? Clarifying? Obfuscation?
You didn't need to admit you have no experience as an investigator, It's been obvious.