conflicts go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. See Valdez, 776 S.W.2d at 168; Cantu, 738 S.W.2d at 255. 13 . See Cantu v. State, 738 S.W.2d 249, 255 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (en banc) (trial court properly refused to permit in-court demonstration to simulate lighting in room where murder occurred when differences between actual room and courtroom would affect crucial element of illumination); Fort Worth & Denver Ry. Co. v. Williams, 375 S.W.2d 279, 281-82 (Tex.1964) (finding reversible error in demonstration of filmed experiment to show light beam cast by locomotive, when position of lights, distances, and other matters was unclear and there was no evidence of candlepower of light); Ginther v. State, 706 S.W.2d 115, 119 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, pet. ref’d) (<HOLDING>); Ford Motor Co. v. Nowak, 638 S.W.2d 582, 590
holding admission of filmed experiment of test vehicle to show design defect was error when plaintiff failed to show test vehicle had same characteristics as plaintiffs car holding that the state failed to meet its burden when the record failed to show that the jurors would or would not be available after a weeks continuance holding that duress evidence was properly excluded where defendant failed to proffer evidence on each element of the defense holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause holding trial court properly excluded video reenactment of arrest to show evidence would have blown out of vehicle when it failed to show position of vehicles window and thus did not address crucial element of air disturbances