No. If you are suggesting there should have been or that this is some way relevant, you should be supporting this assertion. Otherwise it is an irrelevant case of "no data available".
1. As there is, to my knowledge, no odorless exploded gunpowder I'd welcome referenced facts that contradicts that knowledge, paired with referenced facts that the alleged bullets belong to this category.
2. If the alleged bullets doesn't indeed belong to this hypothetical category, one has to conclude that the same bullets releases odor when exploded.
3. The only way to conclude "with a moral certainty" that the odor wasn't strong enough to detect by a normal human olfactory system, is to perform a relevant experiment.
4. The importance of investigating this stems from the fact that no testimony of smell of gunpowder from the alleged crime scene minutes after the alleged shooting has been reported.
5. If this proposed investigation concludes with high significance that there should have been a highly significant odor from or around the alleged snipers nest one have to ask why this finding wasn't reported.
And there is your reversal of the burden of proof.
No, you are wrong.
1. There's common knowledge that exploding gunpowder generates some kind of odor, more or less significant in strength/amount. If you dispute that, you're the one who has to provide evidence to the contrary.
2. Is the odor significant enough to detect in this particular case? I say it probably is. You say it's probably not.
3. The only way to be certain is to conduct a proper investigation.
4. I propose such an investigation, but can not do it my self.
5 You accuse me for reversal of burden of proof. Fail.
You are "almost certain" so you have to convince us. It is not up to anybody to prove you wrong, and you are not assumed to be right in the absence of evidence.
1. I can't convince anybody that there should be a smell without a proper investigation.
2. I'm trying to convince you that a proper investigation should be performed.
3. You accuse me of reversal of the burden of proof.
Then the better question is: Should anybody care about speculation you wont support?
Yes. See above
The burden of proof is on you, to show us this is a possibility, that it should have been investigated, that the investigation would have an impact on the sum of our knowledge.
See above.
So far you have done none of these these things. You have already decided what you think is important and expect everybody else to prove your right. No dice.
No, the only argument against is ... "it doesn't smell that much ...". Says who?
