News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by JoeAltmaier on Thursday October 20, 2022 @03:24PM (#33279418)
...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.

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by kortilla on Thursday October 20, 2022 @04:00PM (#33279933)
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”.

Re:Yet another scientific body has debunked bitemark analysis by snapcaster on Thursday October 20, 2022 @04:03PM (#33279955)
"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