Creative Speculation

"The "assertion" is yours: that his "opinion" of the entry angle is a "fact".."

Shaw discussed the wound as a physician should: not presenting an opinion but describing the wound and then describing how the wound could be explained. For the latter, he said there were two possibilities: that a bullet was "slightly tumbling", or that the wound was a tangential strike. Once again - that is not an opinion, that is a description. He went on to describe other features of the wound which would support an understanding of the wound as tangential. This included the track of the bullet to the rib and the damage done to the rib. Stated another way, Dr Shaw, looking at Connally's back entry wound isolated from all other information, could say there were two possible explanations for the features of this wound. But bringing in the other information, he could, based on that specific information, say one of the two explanations was more likely if not probable. And that explanation was a tangential strike.

In all recreations, a tumbling bullet created far more extensive damage to the rib cage than with Connally.

There are no contrary opinions of ballistic experts that have been introduced in this thread. There are no other medical conclusions which contradict Dr Shaw. There are theories of a "tumbling bullet" which are used to support the Single Bullet Theory, but these theories are either based on a misreading of Shaw's measurements, or do not bother to refer to Connally's wounds at all. The Lattimer test is in the latter category.

The Lattimer experiment did not duplicate the actual conditions it is meant to demonstrate and so is effectively meaningless. There is no "honesty" involved.

"Wow, you found a video that proves my point and you posted it anyway!"

Dr Shaw (approx 5 min): The bullet is in the leg, it hasn't been removed.