Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A time to receive and give (CE399)  (Read 39731 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #120 on: January 20, 2023, 01:03:51 AM »
Advertisement
In response to your assertion whose only substantiation is that you think it’s “the best”.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #120 on: January 20, 2023, 01:03:51 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #121 on: January 20, 2023, 01:50:55 AM »
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. 

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #122 on: January 20, 2023, 09:37:09 PM »
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #122 on: January 20, 2023, 09:37:09 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #123 on: January 21, 2023, 05:00:31 PM »
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.


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #124 on: January 21, 2023, 07:17:33 PM »
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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #124 on: January 21, 2023, 07:17:33 PM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #125 on: January 22, 2023, 09:57:49 PM »
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.


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10876
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #126 on: January 23, 2023, 04:04:46 AM »
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.

Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2023, 04:04:36 AM »
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.




JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A time to receive and give (CE399)
« Reply #127 on: January 26, 2023, 04:04:36 AM »