No, it says one shot missed. It doesn't say there was a single bullet theory BECAUSE one shot missed.
YES, it says one shot missed, leaving two, one of which was the head shot, leaving ONE for the 'single bullet theory'. -- That is logic. And you can't 'see it'? - That's blind.
You're "logic" is failing you again. It says, "Two bullets probably caused all the wounds suffered by President Kennedy and Governor Connally. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicated that three shots were fired, the Commission concluded that one shot probably missed..."
Note that it starts with the statement that two bullets caused all the wounds then moves to one having missed because three were fired. You had it precisely backwards. You better work on that "logic".
None of which is relevent to the claims you were making anyway. Are you having trouble proving your statements?
Not at all, as you see above.
Yeah I saw. Try again.
So you say. You are wrong. You don't know what the WC says, you don't know what the evidence is. You shouldn't make assertions about things you don't understand. If you do so, expect to be called on it.
Flat 'you are wrong' statements like these add nothing. Why bother making them?
It was a response to your flat assertion. Why bother making them?
And your defense of it is just going round in circles. Specious wordgames are the proof. Give it up.