A time to receive and give (CE399)

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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”.

[Mitch Todd]

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"

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[Mitch Todd]

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

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[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