Creative Speculation

"Wm Seger", is it more amusing that you continue to maroon yourself on an island of illogical contradiction or that you are so blissfully unaware of your own predicament?

I mean really - John Connally's head surgeon says the bullet was still in his leg and you say: "he made an assumption". The armed forces' top ballistics expert, their esteemed go-to guy, makes an expert opinion based on a series of careful exacting tests and you say: "he doesn't know what he's talking about". When does this become a version of the Monty Python Argument Sketch? Do you realize what you are saying?

For that matter - and this is why I've bothered to reply - do you even understand the concepts which you yourself have introduced? You presented the notion of a "tumbling bullet" as part of your defense of the single bullet theory, and when faced with a reasonable critique, you have doubled down without realizing that you are undermining your own premise.

"if the bullet was slowed down enough before it hit the wrist, it could still have enough energy to break the wrist with minimal damage to the bullet…"

But this theory - which was advanced by people like Lattimer and Guinn - is entirely dependent on the notion of a "tumbling bullet", and not simply that it (allegedly) went through Kennedy's neck. That is, the bullet HAS to tumble to achieve the required diminishing velocity. "Slightly tumbling" doesn't cut it. That's why Guinn seized on the incorrect measurements. That was the big claim that Lattimer made with his experiment that you are so fond of - it, in his mind, established a tumbling bullet and in turn a reduction in velocity. Except, of course, as Dr Shaw noted, Connally's actual wound was consistent with "slight tumbling" at best (and Shaw felt, based on all the information, a tangential strike was the best explanation and so there probably was no tumbling at all).

Do you not understand that you cannot prove anything without properly recreating the actual conditions of the phenomenon you are trying to quantify?