Creative Speculation

I have neither the facility, expertise, or enthusiasm to "prove" anything related to the ballistics evidence - that is why we consult those persons who do. Your response to Fiester has been exactly the same as your response to any information which challenges your narrow viewpoint: denial coupled with an aggressive, if ill-informed counterattack.

In this case, the "proof" you seek had been right in front of you all along, in the form of videos Fiester linked to in the forum post you used to initially trash her. The two videos featuring impacts from higher velocity bullets are quite striking and provide all the visual evidence necessary to show 1) the phenomenon Fiester describes, which is a reiteration of settled contemporary ballistic science, is real 2) just like she said, the impact from a higher velocity round creates a comparatively large bulge back in the direction of the shot's origin.

The Ken Rahn paper you have used to assert a "real" or "true" explanation does not account for this information. This is not the author's fault, as the paper is about fifteen years old, and ballistic science has moved a long way since then. However, you "Wm Seger" have aggressively assumed to embody the "true" or "real" facts of this case - and repeatedly the sources of your conclusions have been shown to be wanting.

By the way, the Warren Commission knew that ballistics tests were done at Edgewood Arsenal which showed pretty much the same thing - a momentary movement back towards the shot. The Commission chose to ignore this information, and no mention of these experiments appear anywhere in their published materials.