Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A time to receive and give (CE399)  (Read 23347 times)

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #112 on: January 15, 2023, 12:12:55 AM »
Advertisement
I’m not “advancing” anything. This conversation started with me saying that Bill can’t just assume that this definitive statement by Shaw was merely an assumption and nothing else, and then just state that as a fact.

When you say "there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken" you are advancing some alternative take on the evidence. Period.

Whatever Bill assumed WRT Shaw's level of knowledge at that point, Shaw's other statements indicate that he didn't actually know whether there was a bullet in the thigh. And the other two surgeon's statements support Bill's take on Shaw's statement.

Oh, and once again, you try to wedge "definitive statement" into the mix. That tactic works now about the same as it did before. You need a new catchphrase.







JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #112 on: January 15, 2023, 12:12:55 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #113 on: January 15, 2023, 06:36:04 PM »
When you say "there’s nothing that precludes a bullet being there when Shaw made his statement, and no longer there when the X-rays were taken" you are advancing some alternative take on the evidence. Period.

There's no reason to prefer "Shaw was only assuming that a bullet was there and nothing more" to "a bullet was still in Connally's leg when Shaw made his statement". It's just the assumption you prefer to make.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2023, 01:30:59 AM »
There's no reason to prefer "Shaw was only assuming that a bullet was there and nothing more" to "a bullet was still in Connally's leg when Shaw made his statement". It's just the assumption you prefer to make.

Several posts back, I explained why the Shaw-assumed-the-bullet-was-still-there explanation is the best explanation of the evidence:

Plus, if Shaw is incorrect, it's easy to explain why. He saw one hole in Connally's thigh, didn't see any other that could constitute an exit point, and so decided that the bullet entered but did not exit, remaining buried in the thigh. It's a simple and quite reasonable explanation, and requires minimal additional assumptions. However, If we assume that Shaw was right, then it becomes difficult to explain how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could have been wrong. Some conspiracy between the two surgeons, most likely involving others, would have to be presumed. That's direction presents quite an assumptive complex.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2023, 01:30:59 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #115 on: January 16, 2023, 04:23:12 AM »
Several posts back, I explained why the Shaw-assumed-the-bullet-was-still-there explanation is the best explanation of the evidence:

Of course you would think that your own conjecture is “the best”.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2023, 06:04:42 AM »
Of course you would think that your own conjecture is “the best”.

Deduction is the proper word for it, not conjecture. Anyway, we haven't seen you put forth anything better. Or anything at all. All you've managed to do is hide behind the word "definitive"


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2023, 06:04:42 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2023, 04:23:13 AM »
No, the proper word is conjecture because there is no evidence that it’s actually true.

I “put forth” an equally plausible conjecture. You just think yours is better because it’s yours, not because there’s any objective reason to prefer it.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #118 on: January 18, 2023, 01:17:43 AM »
No, the proper word is conjecture because there is no evidence that it’s actually true.

I laid out the evidence, and inferred the most likely explanation using parsimony as a guide. That is deduction.

On the other hand:

I “put forth” an equally plausible conjecture.

You asserted that some other thing musta/coulda happened, but failed to offer any reason or evidence why anyone else should consider such a case. As I said before, "If that's the story you want to advance, then it's up to you to put forth a convincing argument for it." You continue to fail at even trying to do this.
'

You just think yours is better because it’s yours, not because there’s any objective reason to prefer it.

As I've said before, I came to prefer "mine" because it explains the evidence while requiring the least amount of assumption. You think you can read my mind, while continuing to demonstrate that you don't read what I write. All that will get you is the Yuri Gellar Junior Achievement Award

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #118 on: January 18, 2023, 01:17:43 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #119 on: January 19, 2023, 05:43:33 AM »
No, your “most likely thing that happened” has no evidence to support it and requires way more assumptions than just taking the statements at face value.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2023, 05:44:25 AM by John Iacoletti »