Creative Speculation

"The Warren Commission and the HSCA were acting in good faith on the neutron activation analysis..."

This analysis was used by the Commission and other bodies, and by authors such as Vincent Bugliosi, to assert absolute proof of Oswald's guilt as, according to the analysis, all the bullets, including the fragments, could be matched to just one gunman.

"A recent study found that that conclusion is not as statistically reliable as the WC and HSCA assumed it was..."

Several peer-reviewed studies have severely called into question the basic premises of the neutron activation analysis. The FBI stopped using it some years ago. Others, such as the chair of the HSCA Robert Blakey, have taken to calling it "junk science"

"... that study did not find any reason to believe that the shot was from a second shooter; it simply said the neutron activation analysis couldn't conclusively rule out that possibility."

No, what the studies said was that neutron activation analysis was junk science, and so couldn't really be consulted on any issues whatsoever. Fact - the bullet fragments cannot be scientifically matched to CE399. Yet all of the sources which have apparently formed your lone assassin views - Warren Commission, Posner, Bugliosi, et al - used the NAA as positive and even conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt.

"Once again, you have come up short in actual evidence and attempt to substitute unsubstantiated speculation."

You're pointing a speculation finger at me after what you've just said? And ahead of what you are about to say?

"the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts"

really? and this "explanation" based on a "theory" is also somehow not "speculation", do I get that right? For that matter, what exactly are your "facts"? Is it the "tumbling bullet" which is apparently "substantiated by the elongated wounds in Connally's back"? Or is the "fact", in fact, the fact that you don't seem to know that the "elongated wound" in Connally's back was created by the Parklands doctors in the area surrounding a smaller wound of entrance and that the HSCA's star pathologist misread their notes. That's been generally understood for some time now. And you don't seem to know that Lattimer's experiments have little credibility. By the way, the "protusion of the soft lead core" he makes sure to highlight in his diagram is actually the spot where a sample of the lead core was taken by the FBI for their lab. Lattimer was a urologist by profession, and not a ballistics expert. By comparison, Dr Joseph Dolce was, in 1964, Chairman of the US Army's Wound Ballistics Board and most highly regarded and distinguished. That April, he told the Warren Commission in a private conference that any bullet striking Connally's wrist would as result be seriously deformed and that CE399 could not be a magic bullet. This was after extensive tests were performed. The Warren Commission quickly finished with Dr Dolce and instead turned to an army veterinarian named Olivier who was willing to say the magic bullet was "possible". And this "possibility", a ballistics issue answered weakly by a urologist and a veterinarian, is what you are offering as "fact".