A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

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.

I called out your unsupported assertion, "I 'put forth' an equally plausible conjecture" as such; your response is to follow up with another, equally unsubstantiated assertion. Good job, Dr Wisdom! 1

[John Iacoletti]

In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.

[Mitch Todd]

MT: I called out your unsupported assertion, "I 'put forth' an equally plausible conjecture" as such; your response is to follow up with another, equally unsubstantiated assertion

In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.

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. 

[John Iacoletti]

No, I said that your speculative “reason” contains more assumptions than my speculative “reason” and therefore fails Occam. Laying out the reasons for your speculation doesn’t make it anything more than speculation.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

The only assumption mine requires is that both Shaw and Gregory were correct at the time they made their statements.

Your speculation requires that Shaw "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."

The fact that you find this speculation "more reasonable" is irrelevant.

[Mitch Todd]

The only assumption mine requires is that both Shaw and Gregory were correct at the time they made their statements.

This isn't even "speculation." It's nothing more than a simple tautology. Or, really, it's another pair of your assertions bereft of evidence, deduction, or argument. Good job, Mr Logic!

You have to be able to explain how Shaw and Gregory (you forgot the x-rays and Shires) can both have been right. That's the point of the exercise.

Your speculation requires that Shaw "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."

My "speculation" only involves the part about what Shaw concluded about what he saw. Shaw actually said that he saw the hole, and that he didn't examine it other than noting it's location. Importantly, note that my "speculation" actually explains how Shaw could have been wrong, and does so with minimal addition.

[John Iacoletti]

You have to be able to explain how Shaw and Gregory (you forgot the x-rays and Shires) can both have been right. That's the point of the exercise.

Easy. The bullet was there when Shaw spoke (he didn’t say where he got the information, but he didn’t say he just assumed it), and then either fell out or was removed before the surgery.

We have Connally’s report of a bullet falling on the floor and we also have Wade saying in an interview that a nurse showed him a bullet that he told her to give to a policeman, and Bobby Nolan saying that he was handed an envelope that he was told by a nurse had a bullet in it.