I'm not sure why you're trying to play devil's advocate on that. The things they are claiming about the analysis techniques literally have no basis in evidence. Saying "blood spatters follow laws of physics" has nothing to do with what the experts are doing now

...and I countered with "the physics surely have validity", which the plentiful science done to date has corroborated.

Not playing devil's advocate; just doing some simple searches and calling out hyperbole.

These days folks have replaced science with advocacy. You know, that thing lawyers do to convince a jury. To the point folks think that you can arrive at a conclusion with advocacy. Instead of looking at the data.

I'd ramble on about how the world is going to pot, because folks thing a sarcastic remark or clever-sounding turn of phrase is 'just as good' as facts. But oh well.

You confused the GP statement about “blood spatter analysis” with a statement about “blood spatter”.

If someone critiques astrology you don’t reply that “planets follow physics”.

"Blood spatter analysis" is not a physics based discipline. The other comment responding to you with the analogy about astrology is good explanation of what is wrong with your reasoning

not so, if i square a number, and get 4, There is no basis in evidence for the claim that the number I squared was 2. it could equally likely have been -2. Science is capable of making no stronger a claim than that.