Hitstirrer
Active Member
Why not "a probable sequence". But even if it's the most probably, and you've proven it wrong, what's the next most probable? And what after that?
OK. If you want to rewrite NISTs report using your own words to somehow make your own debunk attempt better then go ahead. Its not a valid tactic in any debate I've been involved in though. And could be seen by some observers as somewhat foolish.
Perhaps I should point out that NIST didn't say 'a probable sequence' - they asserted that it was the probable collapse sequence.
But to answer your second question. That is exactly what a real independent investigation would address.