A time to receive and give (CE399)

[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 Person. 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.

[Mitch Todd]

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

Let's go back to what I said:

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

This statement is completely agnostic as to when Shaw became aware of the thigh wound and the possibility of a bullet therein, at least so long as he knew before he left the OR after the chest procedure. Of course, if you think differently, you could always provide your reasoning, rather than belching out unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion.

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.

What evidence is there that the bullet came out or was removed at any time during Connally's presence in the OR? Nothing. So any scenario you might be dreaming of here requires a whole slew of assumptions to explain what happened, whodunnit, and why we don't know about it. in short, FAIL.

A few things you might want to consider:

Gregory arrived in the OR not long after Shaw. Shires arrived in the OR when  "the chest wound had been debrided and was being closed [...] and the arm and leg wounds were being prepared for surgery. There are no gaps between Shaw's, Gregory's and Shires' presences.

Operating rooms are, by sanitational necessity, austere spaces. It's not hard to spot a foreign object that's fallen onto the table or onto the floor. They are also, by the same necessity, cleaned often and thoroughly. The only place in the OR where you might expect to lose something is in the patient's body. The chances that a bullet would roll around on the floor undetected is close enough to nil to be discounted unless evidence of this comes to light. And that evidence is also nil.

In his book Unnatural Death, Michael Baden says that, once they're all the way in, bullets do not fall out. As the bullet penetrates through the soft tissues, the tissue stretches before failing. The result is that the permanent wound cavity is slightly smaller than the object that made it. So when everything comes to rest, the wound track closes behind the projectile, holding the object inside. I've read that there are cases where a bullet that lodged near the surface was worked outwards by the cumulative effects of body movement to a point where it can penetrate the skin and be removed by hand. However, this takes months or years after the initial injury, so that doesn't apply here. The idea that Connally's thigh wound went from hole with a bullet hidden inside to Free Willy without human intervention is also vanishingly small.

MT: 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.

If you want to assert that Connally still had a bullet in him when he entered the OR, but became mysteriously bullet-free when Gregory took over, then you need to explain how that happened, when it happened, who made it happen, and (hopefully, though not necessarily required) why it happened. If you lack evidence to answer any of these questions, then assumptions must be substituted instead of evidence. And there isn't any evidence that it went down this way. You're left with assumption stacked upon assumption all the way down, like turtles. I'm just reminding you of this. And you don't like it one bit.