Which ballistic experts have criticized the single-bullet theory and on what technical grounds?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Multiple named specialists and independent labs have publicly disputed the Warren Commission’s “single-bullet theory” (SBT) on technical grounds including trajectory mismatch, perceived impossibility of the rifle firing sequence, and modern-forensics reconstructions that claim wounds and debris do not align with one bullet [1] [2] [3]. The Knott Laboratory’s 2024 digital reconstruction explicitly concluded state‑of‑the‑art forensic engineering “refutes the single bullet theory as presented by the Warren Commission” [1]; other reports and commentators cite ballistics, autopsy, and trajectory inconsistencies [3] [2].
1. Who the critics are — named labs and expert voices
Criticism of the SBT in recent reporting centers on forensic laboratories and independent analysts rather than a single authoritative new federal panel. Knott Laboratory published a detailed digital‑reconstruction report in 2024 concluding modern visualization and trajectory testing contradict the Warren Commission’s account [1]. Local news coverage of a 2023 lab project reported that new visualization technology made the SBT “scientifically impossible” according to the team presenting the new imagery, and the lab said its tools were ready for ballistics experts to analyze the results [2]. Popular and historical summaries also continue to cite named dissenting ballistics and medical examiners in critical accounts [3] [4].
2. Technical grounds cited — trajectory alignment and film frames
A principal technical objection is that the spatial alignment required by the SBT—entry and exit wounds on President Kennedy and entry/exits on Governor Connally—do not line up when tested against high‑resolution reconstructions of the Zapruder film frames and three‑dimensional trajectory modelling. Knott Laboratory reported testing trajectories using Zapruder frames (Z210 and Z225) and concluded the placement of shooting position, Kennedy’s neck exit and Connally’s entry could not be “reasonably in line,” undermining the single‑bullet path as claimed by the Warren Commission [1].
3. Ballistics and wound‑ballistics challenges
Critics point to wound‑ballistics and ballistic testing as inconsistent with a single, relatively pristine bullet producing the observed damage. Historical summaries note that some Army wound‑ballistics experts told the Warren Commission that certain wounds were “not caused by a pristine bullet,” a point used by later critics to argue that fragments or multiple projectiles better explain Connally’s wrist and thigh injuries [5]. Recent lab teams also say their imaging and material analyses do not reconcile with a single projectile producing the full combination of Kennedy’s and Connally’s wounds [2] [1].
4. Forensic‑technology rebuttals and their limits
Researchers promoting a refutation emphasize newer visualization, digital reconstruction, and forensic engineering tools that were not available to earlier investigators [1] [2]. Proponents claim these tools allow precise re‑testing of geometry and trajectories. Limitations exist in that these accounts are primarily from private labs and media reports; available sources do not present a new, consensus peer‑reviewed forensic paper overturning the decades of prior ballistics work [1] [2]. The Warren Commission’s own ballistics personnel remain part of the historical record and some past experts and later analysts have supported or defended the SBT [5] [6].
5. Historical dissent within the Warren Commission record
Contemporary critics frequently point back to internal uncertainties in the original investigation. Reporting and secondary sources note that not all of the Commission’s ballistics experts were unanimous: at least one Army Ballistics Branch expert described the evidence as “insufficient” to make a conclusive determination, while others termed the Commission’s conclusion “probable,” not definitive—facts critics use to argue the SBT was never full proof even in 1964 [4] [5].
6. Multiple viewpoints and what’s still unresolved
Media and lab critiques present a clear counter‑narrative: new reconstructions and trajectory tests claim the SBT is impossible [1] [2]. But other sources emphasize that ballistics matching and parts of the original forensic work have repeatedly been cited in support of a single‑bullet explanation [5] [6]. Available sources do not include a comprehensive, adjudicating peer‑reviewed study accepted by the forensic community that definitively replaces the long‑standing debate; nor do they present a united list of every named contemporary ballistics expert opposing the SBT beyond the labs and commentators cited above [1] [2] [3].
7. What this means for readers evaluating the debate
The debate now divides along lines of methodology: critics rely on new digital reconstructions and trajectory modelling to argue geometric improbability [1], while defenders point to historical ballistics, wound‑ballistics testimony, and evidence handling that supported the single‑bullet conclusion [5] [6]. Readers should treat private‑lab pronouncements as important but not dispositive without broader forensic corroboration; the sources here document substantive technical objections but also show unresolved disagreement among experts [1] [2] [4].