And even if you could show that there was nothing leaking into the fire on the concrete, how does that prove a Li-ion battery fire?
Well-worn conspiracy-mongering rhetoric.
The conspiracy theorist notes some particular observation—wonky shadows, the movement of Kennedy's head, purported jets of flame—and simplistically dictates that only a certain cause can produce it: studio lighting, a grassy-knoll gunman, or lithium-ion batteries. Naturally that purported cause meshes well with the conspiracy theory. The correct rebuttal is to show that the purported explanation is simplistic, thereby rendering the underlying syllogism non-validating. You can point out that it ignores other potential causes. You can point out that it proposes a naive or incorrect model of causation. Wonky shadows are all over the place in photography, gunshot physics are not simple, and jets of flame can come from a variety of sources.
Instead of receiving that as a valid refutation of the "can only be" major premise in the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theorist immediately reverses the burden of proof and demands that none of those alternatives can be considered unless proven with evidence in that case. Failing any such proof, for whatever reason, the conspiracy hypothesis is proposed to somehow still hold by default.
The rebuttal has shown that the observation is not dispositive, and therefore the explanation requires a differential diagnosis—in short, that the conspiracy argument is a non-validating syllogism. Unwilling or unable to provide a differential diagnosis, the conspiracy theorist proposes that it somehow now becomes the opponent's task not only to show that something
could happen, but that it
did.
This therefore goes back to the wildly double standard of proof that nearly every conspiracy theory relies upon. The mainstream narrative dismissed according to one standard of proof. The conspiracy theory is presented according to a much lower standard of proof. And then rebuttals once again incur a much higher (and here, inappropriate) standard of proof that the conspiracy theory cannot meet. It's an obvious ploy to evade any meaningful responsibility to prove anything with actual evidence.
...so you were attempting to assert that it was as self-evident as seeing a zebra.
Not only is photographic analysis of combustion not even remotely as simple as "find the zebra in this photo," Vixen conceded as much. Previously she assured us that experts agreed with her that the video depicted a lithium-ion battery fire. Why say that if you don't already accept the premise that expertise is needful and valuable in that determination? If you assess the relevance of expertise based on whether it agrees with you, you're not thinking about expertise the right way.
