MT:It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw said he never actually examined the thigh wound other than noting its position.
It's not an assumption to point out that Gregory said that he tried to find a bullet in the thigh, but failed to do so.
It's not an assumption to point out that Shaw also could not find a bullet in the thigh when he performed surgery on the thigh wound
It's not an assumption to point out that the x-rays of Connally's thigh showed no bullet inside the governor's leg.
Nor did I say they were. Speaking of strawmen…
You completely failed to mention exactly what assumptions you thought I was making, so I worked with what I had.
MT: Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
No, the only assumption required is that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference.
Not true. To assume that Shaw's statement is correct necessarily requires the simultaneous assumptions that Gregory's statements, Shires' statements, and the x-rays are all wrong.
But the key point is that I don’t claim to know which alternative is true. You do.
Go back and read what I wrote.
"Given this, whatever assumptions that might be required to conclude that Shaw was simply mistaken are fewer and smaller than the constellation of assumptions required to assert that Shaw was correct, and that there was a bullet in Connally's thigh at the time of Shaw's press conference."
If you were a little more careful, you'd notice I didn't say that my position is "true." I said that it required fewer assumptions. Shaw's statements are mutually exclusive of Gregory's, Shires' and the x-rays. Gregory's and Shires' statements are equivalent, and are equivalent with the x-rays. To say that Shaw is correct, them we have to assume that Gregory is incorrect. And assume that Shires is incorrect. And assume that the x-rays are incorrect. But to say that Shaw is incorrect, I only have to assume that Shaw was incorrect. The rest is up to Occam's Razor, etc.
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.
I already said this early on, but in a less formal way:
MT: You can choose to believe the physician who treated the wound and the x-rays created to facilitate this treatment, or you can choose to believe something said by another doctor who'd left the OR while [I shoulda said "before" rather than "while"] the thigh surgery was being performed. A doctor who admitted that he "didn't examine [the thing wound] that closely, except for its general location." This shouldn't be a difficult choice.Hopefully, you've figured out by now that I'm not claiming a metaphysical certainty here. I don't need to. The requirement to do so is simply your attempt to impose an impossible burden of proof, now that your other excuses have been peeled away.
JI: And none of this lengthy screed supports the claim that Shaw “couldn’t possibly know” a bullet was still in Connally’s leg, or that he was incorrect in the definitive statement he made at the time he made it. Just because you think you’ve “figured it out” doesn’t mean you’re right.
MT: BTW, where did I actually say "couldn't possibly know"?
JI: You didn’t. Bill Brown did and then you injected yourself into my response to him.
MT: Ah, so now you're putting Bills words in my mouth
No, Einstein. My response to Bill was my response to Bill. It’s not all about you, narcissist. Maybe if you didn't jump in to try to be his proxy you would have realized that.
If your response to Bill was your response to Bill and only your response to Bill, then why add the quote from your response to Bill when you responded to something that I wrote? Also, you quoted something I said in the same paragraph, but without doing anything to disambiguate the two. That's a curious way to behave.
