MT: I laid out my reasoning in reply #99. Actually, elsewhere as well, but #99 contains the most formal statement of it. The best you could do was claim that is was too "detailed" a "narratve" for Occam's razor to handle, an unsupported assertion (that word again) that you stopped following when challenged.
No, I said that your speculative “reason” contains more assumptions than my speculative “reason” and therefore fails Occam
You are incorrect. This is your verbatim reply (in reply #100) to the reasoning I laid out in reply #99: "That is quite a detailed narrative to be using Occam’s razor to justify."
You've never shown that your "speculative reason" required fewer assumptions than my explanation of the situation. You haven't even attempted to. You just repeat the same unsupported assertions over and over again.
Laying out the reasons for your speculation doesn’t make it anything more than speculation.
You can call it what you want, but my explanation for what happened neatly contains all the known evidence and doesn't require anything extra other than Shaw's looking at a single entry wound in the thigh and figuring that the bullet must have still been inside Connally's leg. That would be a perfectly reasonable assumption on for him, or anyone else, to make at that time.
Your version of events demands that Shaw actually knew that there was a bullet in the thigh, something that Shaw himself never claimed. It also demands that the bullet found it's way out of the thigh at some point during surgery, somehow disappearing in the process. This requires one of two things. Either the surgeons and nurses in the room at the time conspired to make the bullet disappear, or that it mysteriously vanished without a trace in the OR.