I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Tom Neal]

On 11/21/2018 at 2:44 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I have no experience with gunshot wounds, so I can't give a "rule-of-thumb" answer. But maybe I can use physics to come up with a reasonable approximation.

I'll use the law of Conservation of  Momentum to derive the final velocity. To those unfamiliar with this, it means that the momentum before a collision is equal to the TOTAL momentum after the collision... that is to say, the sum of the momenta of all the moving objects, e.g. bullet fragments, the head, etc.

The momentum of an object is calculated by multiplying its mass by its velocity. Let's say that the mass of the bullet is 10 grams and its velocity 800 meters per second. It's momentum would be:

p = m v = 10 x 800 = 8000

("p" is the variable used for momentum instead of "m" since mass already uses that letter.)

So the momentum before the collision is 8000. This total momentum after the collision must also equal this number. Problem is, we can't predict without a computer simulation whether or not the body will move, nor how many fragments there will be and what speed and direction they will each move. So for the approximate velocity Tom is asking for, I will have to make some assumptions.

Let's suppose that the bullet hits the skull, and the deformed and/or fragmented bullet sticks to the skull. To simplify the problem further, let's pretend for now that Kennedy isn't holding his head up with his neck muscles. Because if he were doing that, we'd have to take into account the momentum of the neck and body. For this approximation I want to deal only with Kennedy's freely-moving head, as that is a manageable problem.

The mass of a head is about 5000 grams. The bullet adds 10 grams to that after the collision. But since 5000 grams is only an approximation anyway, let's ignore that additional 10 grams. Plugging the momentum and mass into the formula we get:

p = m v

8000 = 5000 v

Solving for v we get v = 1.6 meters per second.

So at the point the bullet first makes contact with the head, it will be traveling at a velocity of 800 meters per second. But by the time bullet has deformed and/or fragmented, it and the head will be traveling at only 1.6 meters per second.

Now, had the bullet broken through the skull and come to rest inside, instead of sticking to the outside surface, the final velocity would be the same. It just would take a bit longer for the bullet to decelerate to 1.6 m/s.

If we factor back in the neck and body, those body parts would have taken up some of the momentum, thus slowing the head and bullet down somewhat.

Therefore, my first-order approximation to Tom's question is this:  Somewhat less than 1.6 m/s.

Now, Tom asked for the approximate velocity of the bullet "AFTER the grazing impact," not after it stuck itself to the back of the head. It is impossible to give an answer to that without knowing some specifics. For example, suppose the bullet hits at such an obtuse angle that is merely skids along the skull and barely slows down. In that case the bullet would be traveling close to the original 800 m/s because it won't lost much energy due to friction or anything else.

On the other hand, suppose the bullet breaks through the skull, (as in my first-order approximation) but a tiny fragment remains outside, skidding along the skull and tunneling between the scalp and skull, and down through he neck. That fragment could conceivably be traveling down the neck at ANY speed less than 800 mt/2, depending upon precisely how and when it fragmented. (In addition, it initially will move along with the head in its direction at <1.6 m/s.)

Therefore, my second-order approximation to Tom's question is this:  Between 0 and 800 m/s depending upon precisely what happened to the bullet upon impact.

I have a feeling that Tom will reject the notion that the bullet or fragment could have moved at any speed in that range. But I have given two extreme examples that show this to be the case.

 

LARSEN: "But by the time bullet has deformed and/or fragmented, it and the head will be traveling at only 1.6 meters per second."

You're right, you have no experience with gunshot wounds and your calculations are irrelevant as proof of your theory. Where is your evidence that the bullet would be "deformed" or "fragmented" when it made contact with 1/4" skullbone at 800m/s? No ballistics/forensics/medical text agree with this. The real front shot bullet did not fragment due to impact with the skull, it fragmented by hydraulic pressure AFTER it passed through the skull, as it was designed to do. In your notion there would be no fragment outside the skull to "tunnel." Once again, you have chosen to ignore this along with a dozen other arguments against your "theory."

Where is your evidence that the bullet would decelerate from 800 m/s to 1.6m/s at impact? There is no relationship between your calculation and how much velocity would be lost. How do you explain a supersonic rifle bullet penetrating the skull from the front but stopping and "sticking to the outside surface at the back."? How does a TSBD bullet hit the EOP at an "obtuse angle"? You are STILL ignoring simple questions.

Per SOP you are ignoring your own "theory." I don't blame you. How does your 1.6 m/s bullet retain enough ENERGY to reach and pass through vertebrae, make a turn from horizontal to vertical, break off a bone fragment which cuts the trachea, passes through the skin and 4 layers of cloth. This is a requirement for your "theory." Again SOP, your are supposed to be proving your theory, but your conclusions DISPROVE your theory.

LARSEN: "Between 0 and 800 m/s depending upon precisely what happened to the bullet upon impact."
Your conclusion is the bullet lost somewhere between ALL of its velocity and NONE of its velocity. i.e. There is no possible way to draw any conclusions, so your "theory" MUST be true.


 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

LARSEN: "But by the time bullet has deformed and/or fragmented, it and the head will be traveling at only 1.6 meters per second."

You're right, you have no experience with gunshot wounds and your calculations are irrelevant as proof of your theory.

I never said that my calculations prove or are relevant to the proof of my hypothesis. I merely used them to answer your question.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Where is your evidence that the bullet would be "deformed" or "fragmented" when it made contact with 1/4" skullbone at 800m/s?

Bullets are typically deformed to some extent upon striking bone. But even if the bullet didn't deform, it doesn't matter because that would have no bearing on my calculations.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

No ballistics/forensics/medical text agree with this. The real front shot bullet did not fragment due to impact with the skull, it fragmented by hydraulic pressure AFTER it passed through the skull, as it was designed to do. In your notion there would be no fragment outside the skull to "tunnel." Once again, you have chosen to ignore this along with a dozen other arguments against your "theory."

Bullets sometimes do fragment when hitting bone:

"A bullet striking bone may cause fragmentation of bone and/or bullet, with numerous secondary missiles formed, each producing additional wounding. Fragmentation increases the permanent cavity size (Maiden, 2009; Bruner et al, 2011). "
(Source)

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Where is your evidence that the bullet would decelerate from 800 m/s to 1.6m/s at impact?

I proved it using a law of physics. The velocity would actually be less than 1.6 m/s depending how much momentum was imparted on the neck and body.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

There is no relationship between your calculation and how much velocity would be lost.

How do you explain a supersonic rifle bullet penetrating the skull from the front but stopping and "sticking to the outside surface at the back."?

As I pointed out, it doesn't really matter whether the bullet sticks to the outside of the skull or enters the skull. As long as the bullet doesn't afterward exit the skull, my equations and conclusion hold. The only difference entering the skull would make is that it would take a bit longer for the full deceleration to occur.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

How does a TSBD bullet hit the EOP at an "obtuse angle"? You are STILL ignoring simple questions.

My hypothesis assumes that the approach angle is small enough and the skull bone strong enough that the bullet would skid. I haven't done the work necessary to show that that could have occurred. (The evidence, however, DOES appear to show this is what happened.)

And no, I am not ignoring these "simple questions." I have considered them and evaluated some, but others would require more work than I am capable of doing. This, however, doesn't mean the hypothesis is wrong. It just means it needs more work. The same is true of most of the hypotheses put forth on the forum IMO. And there is nothing wrong with that... that is how all hypotheses begin.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Per SOP you are ignoring your own "theory." I don't blame you.

How does your 1.6 m/s bullet retain enough ENERGY to reach and pass through vertebrae, make a turn from horizontal to vertical, break off a bone fragment which cuts the trachea, passes through the skin and 4 layers of cloth.

 

That 1.6 m/s number is from my "first order approximation" of the velocity you wanted to know. My "second order approximation" demonstrated that the speed of fragments going down through the neck could be traveling at any speed between zero and 800 m/s depending upon precisely how the bullet behaved upon impact.

In other words, I couldn't give you an approximate velocity without having more information.

BTW, my first order approximation of 1.6 mt/s serves to show that slow post-impact velocities are conceivable.

 

3 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

This is a requirement for your "theory." Again SOP, your are supposed to be proving your theory, but your conclusions DISPROVE your theory.

Not true.

 

[Tom Neal]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I agree that Humes lied. But I don't agree that he lied about everything. I can't think of any reason he'd make up a 6 mm x 15 mm grazing wound out of whole cloth.


 

So what? He was a doctor, not a ballistics expert.

 

It could be a case of faulty memory. Or it could be that he thought the bullet first struck at the top of the 15 mm x 6 mm scalp wound, tunneled for that 15 mm, and then entered the scalp there, below the EOP.

I can't think of any reason he'd change his mind and move the wound down intentionally.

I think you protest too much.
 

Hume's wasn't an expert autopsist, but he certainly knew how to identify a wound.

 

He's reacting from the EOP head-shot. And perhaps also from the back wound. Or so my hypothesis goes.
 

How do you know that? (Note that the bullet wouldn't have to graze the EOP because it hit to the right of it (and above).)
 

LARSEN: I agree that Humes lied. But I don't agree that he lied about everything.
You believe that Humes lied many times, but NOT about the thing that supports your case...

LARSEN: So what? He was a doctor, not a ballistics expert.
Agreed. Even by your stated qualifications for "expert" status" he's neither a ballistics expert, nor a gun shot wound expert, but he IS a PROVEN xxxx, and LN! Yet you cite him as your ONLY proof that your "theory" is viable. You would NEVER accept him as proof against your theory, but anyone who appears to agree with you is beyond suspicion.

LARSEN: I can't think of any reason he'd make up a 6 mm x 15 mm grazing wound out of whole cloth.
To explain the throat wound as an exit wound to disprove any front shots. One of his MANY lies.

LARSEN: It could be a case of faulty memory.
Right. He's testifying to a Congressional Committee about the controversial murder of the President but he didn't bother to consult his own notes per WC testimony. One little mistake... The xxxx with the "faulty memory" is the perfect choice to defend your "theory."

LARSEN: I can't think of any reason he'd change his mind and move the wound down intentionally.
It doesn't support your theory, so per your SOP, I'm sure you can't. As I recall, you believe that Humes "moved" the back wound up to align it with the throat wound as does everyone but LNs. However, you can't think of any reason why he and others would try to move the throat wound down to accomplish the same requirement...

Also, it shallows the trajectory angle of any shooter to make the "tunneling" sound slightly less impossible... This is lost on you because you've already proven you don't understand why this matters, even though it is SIMPLE Geometry.

LARSEN: I think you protest too much.
Pot calls kettle black. ALL you have done is protest, cite liars and pretend irrelevant "calculations" prove your "theory" and refuse to explain a dozen reasons why your "theory" doesn't work.

LARSEN: Hume's wasn't an expert autopsist, but he certainly knew how to identify a wound.
ONLY if it fit in with the LN lie. How many times did the WC and HSCA disagree with his findings? e.g. His wound location was off by 4." Before you defend Humes by calling THEM liars, they were liars also. Q. Which liars should we believe? A. The one that you believe supports your theory. Don't blame me, that's what you did...

LARSEN: He's reacting from the EOP head-shot.
According to you the front head shot threw him violently backwards, but his head didn't move at all when hit in the back of the head? For this to happen, the bullet could only have lost slight momentum or his head would have noticeably moved - it didn't. Therefore the bullet retained at least the majority of its momentum and punched through the scalp following it's initial trajectory almost exactly.

LARSEN: And perhaps also from the back wound.
Is the same type of "delayed reaction" that explains JFK and JBC different reaction times when hit by the same bullet? Or do you believe the back and EOP shots occurred simultaneously?

LARSEN: Or so my hypothesis goes.
You've never mentioned many things that are now part of your "hypothesis"...

For anyone who doesn't know; your "hypothesis" / "theory": A bullet tunneled along the bottom of the skull, broke off a long slender bone fragment which tore the trachea, exited the throat through a ROUND hole, tore long VERTICAL slits in the shirt, exited the body and vanished without marking the necktie.

According to Larsen this is HIS theory that the throat was an exit wound, resulting from a shot to the head. Per the above, he makes no attempt to explain the majority of his "alleged" trajectory. If I gave directions from point A to point B, but left out the majority of the turns, then I did NOT give directions from A to B. Larsen had two theories: 1. a bullet tunneled between scalp and skull. 2. a bullet or fragment broke off a piece of bone that cut the trachea, passed through the skin and the shirt but stopped at the necktie

He fails to describe the entire trajectory, does not even connect  theories 1 and 2, but insists his theory is how he gets from gun to vanished bone...

Larsen has now included the origin of the shot as the TSBD  and the EOP impact point.

If you accept the trajectory from muzzle to post scalp tunneling then you don't know simple geometry, and the following questions remain unanswered:
1. where does the tunneling on the skull terminate?
2. how could it have enough energy to follow steps 2-9 ?
3. what event turns the frag from approx horizontal trajectory to vertical?
4. where and how does the frag get from the posterior side of the cervical vertebra to the anterior?
5. what damage does this cause and where is it located?
6. where and how is this 1/4" diameter bone frag created?
7. how and where is the trajectory turned from vertical to horizontal (as described by Perry)?
8. why does this bone frag align itself (in 2 dimensions!) along its trajectory pointy end first?
9. how could a frag that did not have enough energy to pierce the scalp have enough momentum to tear the tough trachea, tissue, skin and shirt?

According to the forensic and medical texts, for a gunshot to the head, penetration of the scalp is a second-order difference when calculating bullet velocity. That means it is such a SMALL number that it has no effect on the conclusions drawn from the velocity results. Larsen however states in his "extreme" examples which he claims denote the upper and lower limits of his "hypothesis" within which, his theory allegedly works, that the scalp deflected the bullet upwards! The front shot bullet punched through scalp & skull, fragmented, and the frags traversed the majority of the brain. A shot to the rear would do the same.

The front shot did NOT pass through the center of the brain. This proves that the bullet struck the skull at an angle rather than perpendicular. i.e. If perpendicular, a line from the muzzle to the wound would extend to the center of the skull. An impact at the SAME point at e.g. a 30 deg angle would not. Despite Larsen's protestations a shot from the TSBD (at a specific range) to a specific point on the head can be achieved at only ONE trajectory angle whether you refer to elevation or azimuth.

LARSEN: How do you know that? (Note that the bullet wouldn't have to graze the EOP because it hit to the right of it (and above).)
Wow. You REALLY don't get this do you? You picked the EOP impact reference, not me. There's nothing magical about the EOP - above below center left right it doesn't matter as far as a doable elevation angle. You still can't get a "grazing" trajectory. 

You cited Humes. He said above, he said below. Did he say right? Now you are stipulating that it was absolutely ABOVE and RIGHT. So Humes does NOT support your notion because we don't know which answer is what he believes. Do you actually believe this alteration allows your "hypothesis" to work? It doesn't change the reasons why it doesn't work, but what is your source that the impact was above & right?

How about rebutting my dozen or so statements?

[Tom Neal]

On 11/19/2018 at 1:18 PM, Ray Mitcham said:

Tom, if you mean me, I think you have  the wrong poster. I don't ever remember mentioning a bone fragment.

 

p.s. It's Ray Mitcham.

Hello Again Ray,

A member PM'd me that he remembers the exchange and your comments. He sent me a link to two posts, but the link didn't work. I tried to make one also, but my link didn't work either.

The first post was in the "throat shot" thread and the second was in Prudhomme's "Back Wound Revisited (Again)" thread. The first thread comments are as I stated, and in the 2nd thread you state 'I still don't see how a bone fragment can make a round hole in the throat and a slit in the shirt.' James Gordon then posts several times in agreement with you... IIRC Gordon believes the throat wound is an entry wound, and I don't recall if you've taken a position as to exit/entry wound.

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Tom Neal said:

How about rebutting my dozen or so statements?

Because no matter what I say, you will nitpick it to death.

 

[Ray Mitcham]

12 hours ago, Tom Neal said:

Hello Again Ray,

A member PM'd me that he remembers the exchange and your comments. He sent me a link to two posts, but the link didn't work. I tried to make one also, but my link didn't work either.

The first post was in the "throat shot" thread and the second was in Prudhomme's "Back Wound Revisited (Again)" thread. The first thread comments are as I stated, and in the 2nd thread you state 'I still don't see how a bone fragment can make a round hole in the throat and a slit in the shirt.' James Gordon then posts several times in agreement with you... IIRC Gordon believes the throat wound is an entry wound, and I don't recall if you've taken a position as to exit/entry wound.

Tom

You are quite right. As I remember,  I was arguing against it being a bone fragment.I still fail to see how a bone fragment could form a round hole in the President's throat and slits in his shirt. I assume you want my opinion. I don't believe it was a bone fragment. Never have. I do indeed think as Dr Perry, and others originally thought, it was an entrance wound

[David Von Pein]

Nov. 2018 television interview with Fred Litwin:

 

[David Lifton]

On 10/12/2018 at 5:42 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Awhile back W. Tracy Parnell challenged me to go public.  The best I can do is write a script for a segment on the Rachel Maddow Show.  Zero percent chance it'd fly, but here goes, fwiw:

Rachel Maddow

Our special guest tonight -- on the 55th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy—is one of our favorite friends of the show, Alec Baldwin.  Welcome, Alec.

 

 Alec Baldwin

Thanks for having me on tonight, Rachel.  I’d like to take the opportunity to take a fresh approach to the murder of John F. Kennedy – no theories, just facts.  Approach the case like any cop would approach any murder.

 

Maddow

Loved you as Captain Ellerby in The Departed!

 

Baldwin

Hold that thought – I may get brutally honest soon enough.

 

Maddow (laughing)

I can’t wait!

 

Baldwin

Fact #1:  There is a bullet hole in JFK’s shirt 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Fact #2:  Kennedy’s personal physician filled out the official, verified Death Certificate and listed a wound in his back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, consistent with the location of the hole in the shirt.

Fact #3: The x-ray of Kennedy’s neck reveals a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, that wing thing on your vertebra.

Fact #4:  Two doctors who attended to Kennedy at Parkland Hospital wrote in their contemporaneous notes that JFK had a wound of entrance in his throat.

Fact #5:  A Secret Service agent who rode in the car right behind Kennedy’s wrote in his contemporaneous notes that he saw JFK hit in the back four inches down the shoulder.

Fact #6: Two FBI agents who were assigned to make a report on the autopsy cabled FBI HQ and said there was a shallow wound in Kennedy’s back, and no bullet was found in the autopsy.

Those 6 facts encompass the strongest evidence in the case – physical evidence, documentary evidence, and the contemporaneous written accounts of 5 men in position of authority.

We know from this fact pattern that JFK was shot in the back at T3, the round didn’t exit, and no round was found during the autopsy.

There was a wound of entrance in the throat, no exit, and no round found during the autopsy.

Draw what conclusions you may, those are the facts.

 

Maddow

Wound in the back, no exit, no bullet found.  Wound in the throat, no exit, no bullet found.  What could have happened to those bullets, Alec?

 

 Baldwin

 I dunno. I don’t do theories.  Maybe folks in your profession could look into it – after all 55 years isn’t too late to do your jobs.

 

Maddow

And so… the Captain Ellerby treatment after all!  Thanks for comin’ on, Alec.

 

Baldwin

Thanks for having me, Rachel.

Cliff:  Very nice summary.  Brief, cogent, etc.  Now adding to what you have written. . . : Remember the quote from the Sibert-O'Neill report: that the individuals performing the autopsy were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. (Think about it: That's a remarkable statement, written by two FBI agents who were witnessing Humes' bafflement at their being no bullets in the body).  The most reasonable answer, of course, is that bullets were removed, prior to autopsy.  The one place we (perhaps) disagree is that I  do not believe that the back wound is genuine.  A fact to remember: Dr. Perry testified that he received a call from Humes who asked him (Perry) "if we had made any wounds in the back."  So not only were bullets fired from the front "removed," but --to complete the picture of trajectory falsification, and a critical part of understanding the overall deception: two entries, one at the back of the head, and the other just above the shoulder blade, were added to the rear.  As I have spelled out in Best Evidence, this was part of the overall plan to (a) conceal the fact that shots struck from the front and (b) create the false appearance (at autopsy) that JFK was struck--in the back (or low neck) and in the head, from behind.    I have still further evidence of contrivance at the time of autopsy.  What some people studying this don't seem to fully understand is that this was more--much more--than a "coverup"; but a plan, from the outset, not just to murder JFK, but (after his death) to create a false story of how he died.  Pre-autopsy bullet removal was one part of the plan; changing the bullet trajectories was another.  This is all spelled out in Best Evidence. And I have additional (and powerful) evidence that will be set forth in Final Charade.  Anyway, Cliff, thanks for your cogent summary, which makes clear why the official version cannot possibly be true. DSL

[Micah Mileto]

37 minutes ago, David Lifton said:

Cliff:  Very nice summary.  Brief, cogent, etc.  Now adding to what you have written. . . : Remember the quote from the Sibert-O'Neill report: that the individuals performing the autopsy were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. (Think about it: That's a remarkable statement, written by two FBI agents who were witnessing Humes' bafflement at their being no bullets in the body).  The most reasonable answer, of course, is that bullets were removed, prior to autopsy.  The one place we (perhaps) disagree is that I  do not believe that the back wound is genuine.  A fact to remember: Dr. Perry testified that he received a call from Humes who asked him (Perry) "if we had made any wounds in the back."  So not only were bullets fired from the front "removed," but --to complete the picture of trajectory falsification, and a critical part of understanding the overall deception: two entries, one at the back of the head, and the other just above the shoulder blade, were added to the rear.  As I have spelled out in Best Evidence, this was part of the overall plan to (a) conceal the fact that shots struck from the front and (b) create the false appearance (at autopsy) that JFK was struck--in the back (or low neck) and in the head, from behind.    I have still further evidence of contrivance at the time of autopsy.  What some people studying this don't seem to fully understand is that this was more--much more--than a "coverup"; but a plan, from the outset, not just to murder JFK, but (after his death) to create a false story of how he died.  Pre-autopsy bullet removal was one part of the plan; changing the bullet trajectories was another.  This is all spelled out in Best Evidence. And I have additional (and powerful) evidence that will be set forth in Final Charade.  Anyway, Cliff, thanks for your cogent summary, which makes clear why the official version cannot possibly be true. DSL

Is there any reason why the chest tube incisions at Parkland were deep but shallow at Bethesda?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

Cliff:  Very nice summary.  Brief, cogent, etc.  Now adding to what you have written. . . : Remember the quote from the Sibert-O'Neill report: that the individuals performing the autopsy were "at a loss to explain" why they could find no bullets. (Think about it: That's a remarkable statement, written by two FBI agents who were witnessing Humes' bafflement at their being no bullets in the body).  The most reasonable answer, of course, is that bullets were removed, prior to autopsy.  The one place we (perhaps) disagree is that I  do not believe that the back wound is genuine.  A fact to remember: Dr. Perry testified that he received a call from Humes who asked him (Perry) "if we had made any wounds in the back."  So not only were bullets fired from the front "removed," but --to complete the picture of trajectory falsification, and a critical part of understanding the overall deception: two entries, one at the back of the head, and the other just above the shoulder blade, were added to the rear.  As I have spelled out in Best Evidence, this was part of the overall plan to (a) conceal the fact that shots struck from the front and (b) create the false appearance (at autopsy) that JFK was struck--in the back (or low neck) and in the head, from behind.    I have still further evidence of contrivance at the time of autopsy.  What some people studying this don't seem to fully understand is that this was more--much more--than a "coverup"; but a plan, from the outset, not just to murder JFK, but (after his death) to create a false story of how he died.  Pre-autopsy bullet removal was one part of the plan; changing the bullet trajectories was another.  This is all spelled out in Best Evidence. And I have additional (and powerful) evidence that will be set forth in Final Charade.  Anyway, Cliff, thanks for your cogent summary, which makes clear why the official version cannot possibly be true. DSL

Thank you, David,  We're on opposite sides of the street on some issues -- but at least we're on the same street!

Good luck with Final Charade...

[Karl Hilliard]

On 10/8/2018 at 11:53 AM, François Carlier said:

On 10/8/2018 at 11:53 AM, François Carlier said:

You are wrong.
You seem not to know very much about the single bullet.
Serious studies have been made about the single bullet. Researchers have used measurements, complex calculations, computer reenactments, and all that sort of things.
To name just three of them :
2003 : the computer animation made by Dale Myers ("The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy")
2004 : the reenactment in "JFK. Beyond the magic bullet", Discovery Channel
2013 : "Cold Case JFK". Nova
They used forensic science and their expertise and showed a re-enactment that goes a long way in proving that the single bullet theory is indeed valid.
Indeed, they did the best they could : they duplicated the path of travel of the bullet.
What is important to underline here is that those people are not from the CIA, or FBI or some type of "hidden government". They are just honest citizens. And they have brought independent confirmation. That's very important !
The single-bullet theory is not just a theory invented by the Warren commission to fool the American people (if it was, it would be easy to disprove it), but it is the most reasonable explanation of the shooting sequence and it has been repeatedly confirmed over the years, by independent people wo didn't know each other. That's very powerful !
See also this very interesting video (interview) :
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=documentary+the+single+bullet+theory&view=detail&mid=319DBF144FED8377E724319DBF144FED8377E724&FORM=VIRE

 That video is still around [not surprisingly] showing the path of the bullet entering Kennedy's neck perfectly at dead center cervical. Which even if that was the accurate placement would still leave the question as 'theoretical'. "The single bullet theory is not just a theory...." Did he read what he wrote? Even pro deep state wiki still lists--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory

What is 'very powerful' is the belief in not the impossible..but in the most unlikely. The issue being what I call reverse ballistics. There was only one gunman therefore the theory must exist as a fact.--- "Get your facts first, then you can distort them however you want"-- Mark Twain.

Alene Specter did just that because there could be only one gunman. The problem was that the wounds had to be moved around also to make the theory even remotely possible. That complication was explained away by just simply ignoring it.