'You say the rifle was incapable of the shooting. Do you want to narrow that down to some specific issues?'
----------------------------------
Not really. -- This has been done, -- ad nauseum, thousands of times before, here at FR, and elsewhere.
People have made claims, sure. Different ones. That's why I want to know what specific ones you are relying on.
You, -- & the WC, - claim the rifle was capable of doing all of the damage at the shooting with three shots. - The first missed, the 'magic' second, and the head shot.
I haven't offered a scenario at all. As for the WC, the above scenario fits in their findings, yes. Except, they didn't specify which shot had to miss, and there is no "magic" bullet. Using the "magic" term is simply a propaganda point. The bullet is not alleged to have had any magic properties.
This magic bullet myth has been well refuted since '64. - Yet you pretend ignorance? Why?
Just because I don't accept your unfounded claims doesn't mean I'm pretending ignorance. I am disagreeing with you. You are wrong. The single bullet theory has never been refuted.
Do your own research if you really are confused.
I've done more research than you know. You should try it. BTW, "research" does not mean reading a bunch of conspiracy books.
Your unfounded claims that the 'magic bullet' theory has never been refuted is ludicrous. - Feel free to cite your sources for this incredible belief.