A time to receive and give (CE399)

[Mitch Todd]

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.

The bit from Connally's book doesn't work in this scenario. There is the previously mentioned admission by Connally that he's not really the most reliable narrator on this. But there's something more. He said that the bullet fell out wen he was being moved from a gurney to "the examining table."  "Examining table" implies Trauma Room 2, rather than the OR, which would have an operating table. The bullet didn't even make it out of the ER, and was therefore unavailable to be in Connally's thigh in the OR. 

Even if we assume (Iacoletti.assumptions++) that Connally really meant "operating table," there's still a problem. If you read the nurses' and surgeons' testimony, Connally's gurney was never actually wheeled into the operating room. Instead, the Operating table was brought out of the OR and Connally was moved onto it before being whisked into the OR. So the bullet would still have never made it into the OR, and would have fallen out well before sawbones Shaw ever sawed the Governor bones. Shaw is still wrong here, no matter how you cut it.

And you bring up Robert Harris' beloved wandering-nurse-with-a-bullet. As you note, Henry Wade said a nurse came to him with what he said was a bullet while he was in the waiting room  with the Connally party.  And Trooper Nolan, another member of the Connally party in the waiting room, was given an envelope by a nurse who told him it contained a bullet. Nolan himself said he didn't know whether it really was a bullet or not. Bill Stinson, Connally's aide who actually insisted on being in the OR while the surgery was going on, was talking with Nolan at the time and remembered it about the same was as Nolan. And I will admit that this is something of a mystery as to what actually occurred. Complicating matters is that there is a small envelope in evidence that is filled out in Audrey Bell's handwriting and has Nolan's initials in his handwriting. Both Bell and Nolan authenticated their own writing on the envelope. The problem is that this envelope contained "bullet fragment," as stated in Bell's writing. Bell herself says it contained small fragments she retrieved from the scrub nurse at the end of Connally's surgery, and not a bullet.  In fact, it's the CE842 envelope.

To shoehorn the wandering nurse into our debate, you need to assume some large combination of:

1.) Bell was lying or Nolan was visited by a second nurse (he only ever mentioned one)
2.) that said bullet was retrieved from Connally's thigh, and not from some other source after Shaw left the OR
3.) that Gregory and/or Shaw were lying and the x-rays were forged
4.) that this happed with out Stinson noticing, or maybe Stinson was in on it.
5.) that the other OR personnel (ie, scrub nurses, circulating nurses, assistant surgeons) either didn't notice or were part of the coverup.

Those are a lot assumptions that have to be added for Robert Harris' patented wandering nurse theory to be correct. My explanation is simpler and requires much less assumption.

[John Iacoletti]

In fact, it’s not necessary to assume any of those things. That’s just you inventing a contrived, complicated strawman argument in order to buttress your own argument. The only assumption required is that Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg, that was no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery. I agree that it is a mystery as to what actually occurred. Like most aspects of this case.

[Mitch Todd]

In fact, it’s not necessary to assume any of those things. That’s just you inventing a contrived, complicated strawman argument in order to buttress your own argument. The only assumption required is that Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg, that was no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery. I agree that it is a mystery as to what actually occurred. Like most aspects of this case.

What I said is not contrived at all. It's the natural consequence of mashing up the Bob Harris' Wandering Nurse (hereafter BHWN) into the Shaw/OR Bullet discussion. If we take the BHWN meme at face value, we still have to assume that the bullet she carried came from Connally's thigh. While it was in the operating room. After Shaw left the OR. And then we have to explain how that happened when Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays all say there was no bullet in the thigh at the time. If you find that too complicated, well...that's my point.

I think you see the problem with it, because you dropped the whole line of attack in favor of, "Shaw was advised of a bullet being in Connally’s leg." Much simpler but still fraught with problems. Like "Who told Shaw there was a bullet in Connally's leg," and "how did they actually know?" If you claim that the bullet was "no longer there by the time Dr. Gregory started his surgery," you have to explain what happened to the bullet that made it not be in Connally's thigh, and how that happened without anyone knowing about it or admitting it. It's good to keep in mind that Gregory entered the OR well before Shaw left.

[John Iacoletti]

I didn’t “drop” anything. If Shaw didn’t examine the thigh wound then he got the information some other way. And if the thigh bullet came out or was removed, it didn’t necessarily have to happen in the OR either. I don’t know what somebody called Bob Harris postulates, nor do I particularly care. Why do you keep dragging him in as if I did? Perhaps so you can contrive more complications?

I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else.

[Mitch Todd]

I didn’t “drop” anything. If Shaw didn’t examine the thigh wound then he got the information some other way. And if the thigh bullet came out or was removed, it didn’t necessarily have to happen in the OR either. I don’t know what somebody called Bob Harris postulates, nor do I particularly care. Why do you keep dragging him in as if I did? Perhaps so you can contrive more complications?

I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else.

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR. If the bullet didn't come out in the OR, then it either was never removed after Shaw left or was removed during some surreptitious post-surgery surgery. Either way, you have a lot of 'splainin' to do, Lucy, if you want to push that idea. Which is to say, you have a lot of assumptions to generate to make everything work.

Quantum theory is really nothing more than a set of mathematical models built around a a set of metaphors. We can't directly see what going on, and don't really know if the subatomic really works the way that we understand them to. But we still use these metaphors and models and theoretical understanding because they explain what we see better and more elegantly than anything else we've com up with. In fact, they are seen as being true for all but the most persnickety philosophical martinets. For that matter A number of mathematical mavens have noted that you can create a Ptolemaic solar system that predicts the known movements of the planets just as well as the Keplerian model. But you have to generate epicycles within epicycles within epicycles within epicycles, etc, etc, etc. I figure you'd need at least a kiloherbert worth of nested epicycles to pull it off. So, should we just give up on Keplarian astronomy if we can shoehorn in the older Ptolemaic universe with the appropriate number of additions?

When you say "I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else," you are trying to claim that any explanation of the evidence is equal to any other. This is simply not true, and misguided to boot. It's the old false equivalency BS often seen hanging out with dissolute characters like creationists and "intelligent design" advocates.  Is that the crowd you want to emulate?

BTW, Robert Harris was once a relatively well known assassination researcher who associated himself with the LaFontaines. I used to spar with him on the second moderated usenet assassination group; Harris single-handedly killed the first one by being a petty little turd. A number of other posters (including Duncan himself) likewise tangled with him; I doubt you'll find much complimentary commentary about him from either side of the fence.  I don't know what he was like in person, but he had a particularly unpleasant online persona. One that ultimately earned him, and his LaFontaine  associates, a pretty nasty libel suit. anyway, he had this theory that the nurse Wade/Nolan/Stinson saw was a "newbie nurse" that found the "real CE399" and put it in a wadded-up foreign body envelope she fished out of the trash. That's why I brought him "into this." His name is a good way to shorthand the wandering nurse testimony.

[John Iacoletti]

For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.

When you say "I don’t know where Shaw got his information, just like you don’t know that Shaw based his statement on a mere assumption and nothing else," you are trying to claim that any explanation of the evidence is equal to any other. This is simply not true, and misguided to boot.

In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.

It's the old false equivalency BS often seen hanging out with dissolute characters like creationists and "intelligent design" advocates.  Is that the crowd you want to emulate?

The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.

[Mitch Todd]

MT: For Shaw to have been right, the bullet could not have come out at any point before he left the OR.

Bull. We don’t know where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg.

What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.

In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another. It’s not testable or falsifiable. You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions.

In the absence of any other information, there is no reason to prefer one guess over another.

Parsimony, that is, Occam's razor, is a good way to choose between possible explanations. 

And let's go over the basics again:

If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing. I'm still obligated to explain how Shaw could be wrong, then it's easy to believe that Shaw, who's knowledge of the thigh wound at the time went no further than knowing of it's existence, assumed that a bullet hole would lead to a bullet inside that hole. A perfectly understandable conclusion given the circumstances.

If I say that Shaw was right, the evidence I have for it is nothing other than Shaw said it  at the presser. The evidence against consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. And the obligation to explain will have to explain quite a bit. Not only how Shaw was right, but also how Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays could all be wrong. There be dragons. Big, assumption-laden ones. So far, you haven't made any real effort to explain how any of it could come to pass other than mumbling that some nebulous something something something darkside might have happened. You've trotted out some choice items out of the Robert Harris back catalogue, but none of them actually help you here, as noted. In fact, the bit from Connally's autobiography would count as evidence that Shaw is wrong. 


It’s not testable or falsifiable.

Shaw's press conference statement is entirely falsifiable. If it were true, then a bullet would be found in the x-rays of Connally's leg. And Shaw would have found a bullet when he examined and excised the wound. But Gregory, Shires, and the x-rays are all negative. For that matter, if Shaw really did know there was a bullet left in the thigh after he left the OR, then I would expect him to say so in at least one of his several later interviews. But he never says anything like it.


You’re trying to bolster one assumption with more assumptions
I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine.

The false equivalency here is equating a guess about why a doctor made a statement with planetary motion theory.

What I said is that the the better solution is the one that requires the least assumption, this time pitting Ptolemy against Kepler in a fifteen-round caged Occamian deathmatch. 

[John Iacoletti]

What I said is entirely correct, and is independent of the question "where or when or how Shaw got the information about the bullet in the leg." Shaw said at the press conference that a bullet was still in Connally's thigh, but would be removed. For that statement to have been correct, the bullet could not have come out before Shaw left the OR. QED.

No, that would presume (with no reason to presume it) that the information was conveyed to him in the OR and not before.

If I say that Shaw was wrong, the evidence I have for it consists of Gregory's testimony and other statements, Shires' testimony and other statements, and the x-rays taken of the thigh. The evidence against is....nothing.

That’s because you also presuming (with no reason to presume it) that there was either a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time or there was never a bullet in Connally’s leg the entire time. It doesn’t consider the possibility that both Shaw’s statement and Gregory’s statement could be correct, but at different times.

I'm only making one assumption, and it's used only as an explanation to reconcile Shaw's statement with the other evidence. Whatever extra assumptions you assume I'm assuming are your own assumptions, not mine

No, they are yours. You’re making a whole bunch of assumptions about what must be true if Shaw’s statement was ever correct. Assumptions specifically designed to promote your version of events.