Creative Speculation

> Um... Dr Shaw's measurements of the Connally back entry wound is not an "assertion".

Um... correct, that measurement is a (presumed) "fact." The "assertion" is yours: that his "opinion" of the entry angle is a "fact" (even though he didn't seem to be nearly so certain about that as you, and even though you're given no reason to discount the contrary opinions of ballistic experts).

> Dr Shaw also discussed what these measurements meant, which is not an "assumption".

Correct again -- two in a row! -- that would be the "opinion" I mentioned. The "assumption" I'm talking about is again yours: that Shaw is a doctor so his opinion is a fact, the beloved logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." But you use this assumption as the "reason" for your assertion.

> Lattimer's experiment does not replicate the actual conditions and is thus meaningless.

You can keep saying that if you like, but one possible reason for not understanding what the experiments demonstrated could be your apparent refusal to understand the purpose of the experiments in the first place. Nonetheless, I do believe that when a rational person evaluates conspiracists' claim that CE399 is "impossible" so there must have been a second shooter, then Lattimer's experiments are quite meaningful to anyone wanting an honest answer.

> Dr Shires, also at the press conference, also affirmed the bullet was in the leg. Why do you assume that experienced medical personnel would be prone to making assumptions?

Wow, you found a video that proves my point and you posted it anyway! What a sport! Thanks!