Background
There is no evidence, hard or soft, that supports the single bullet theory (SBT). Its defenders have spent a lot of time proving that it could have happened that way, which is not the same as proving that it did, a distinction they don't make. But the can't even prove it hypothetically because the sniper's nest and the various wounds of Kennedy and Connally do not line up. In addition, witnesses say the men reacted at two different times to two different bullets, and the Zapruder film seems to prove them right. To solve the problems of geometry and timing, promoters of the SBT have resorted to the use of junk science and chicanery. (See especially the crudely fraudulent computerized animation of the Zapruder film by Dale Myers: www.abclies.com/dale.html) But even these tricks do nothing more than give the appearance of proving the theory as opposed to proving the reality. There is still no evidence whatsoever for the SBT. But since when has that been a problem? Evidence can always be manufactured, especially when it involves the written word.
One example of manufactured evidence is the lie about Connally’s back wound. Why do supporters of the SBT say the wound was 3 centimeters long, when, in fact, it was only half as long? Why was the 1.5 centimeter wound a problem? Defenders of the theory say that if the Carcano bullet had struck sideways (as opposed to nose-on), it would have created a wound the same size as its length (3 centimeters), and such a long wound would be proof the bullet had been tumbling. If it had been tumbling, this, presumably, would be proof it had struck something else on its way to Connally’s back. The something else in this case: John F. Kennedy.
Problem: Connally’s back wound was only as long as the wound in the back of Kennedy’s head: 1.5 centimeters. No one has suggested Kennedy was hit in the head with a tumbling bullet.
read more here in trajectory of a lie http://www.history-matters.com/essays/j ... lWound.htm
