>> However, pointing to Connelly’s wounds is not a circular argument. It is physical evidence supporting the fact that one bullet struck high men. An oblong wound could not have happened if it was not tumbling. Any bullet that hit a hard object first would have been more deformed than the “less than pristine” bullet found on the gurney.
You are assuming the men were hit by one bullet, then saying the bullet proves the men were hit by one bullet.
Don't feel alone though. This happens on any controversial subject. It's a function of confirmation bias, which happens on both polarized sides, sadly.
Instead of assuming the conclusion and then ignoring things that don't "prove" the conclusion, what you're supposed to do is look at all the evidence and then try hypotheses that fit all of the observations.
I am assuming nothing. I am looking at evidence and deducing the scenario, just as a conspiracy theorist looks at photos of the grassy knoll and deduces multiple shooters from the preception of the pattern of dsrk shapes. The onus is on you to explain how one gets an oblong entry wound without the bullet first fitting some other object. Furthermore you have offered no evidence that the single bullet scenario did not happen.
In fact, it is you who suffer from confirmation bias. In your mind no bullet with the deformation such as that of Warren exhibit 399 could possibly have passed through both men, even though tests using sophisticated recreations have produced remarkable similar results. Don’t feel bad though, even well meaning people fall for that, not just conspiracy nuts.