For starters, how about you tone down the "fool" stuff?
I believe you lean on the 3 hulls far too much. The claim being that 3 hulls = 3 shots. But the fly in that ointment is that the cadence of those 3 shots can Not be accomplished with a bolt action Carcano rifle. An issue that You never mention. We have Umbrella Man/Witt and an adult Amos Euins both on film tapping out the 3 shot cadence. "Pow....Pow/Pow"!
More reliance on unreliable sources, aka earwitnesses. There are other earwitnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. We know all the earwitnesses cannot be right because their recollections are mutually exclusive. Of course you gravitate to the ones that support your narrative rather looking for more credible forms of evidence. I don't rely on earwitnesses for much of anything. Earwitnesses are even less reliable than eyewitnesses who are notoriously unreliable. Yet you choose to take the recollections of Witt and Euins as if they are gospel. Furthermore, you put your faith in Euins recollections years after the event.
3 hulls is not proof positive of 3 shots. Even the WC allowed for the possibility that Oswald could have started with a spent hull in the chamber and ejected it prior to firing. However, that possibility seems quite remote given the clear consensus that there were 3 shots and JBC's clear recollection and his observable reaction to a missed shot prior to the one which struck him in the back.
You demonstrate a trait that I've noticed is common among conspiracy hobbyists over the decades I've engaged with them. You judge the credibility of witness accounts based on whether it fits with your preferred narrative, not on how it fits with the body of evidence as a whole. Nothing any witness tells, eye or ear witness, should be accepted as fact unless it can be corroborated by other forms of evidence. That doesn't mean witnesses are always wrong but it does mean they aren't always right. They get things wrong, sometimes very important details wrong. I don't find any argument compelling that begins with "So-and-so said..." unless it can be established by the body of evidence that so-and-so remembered the event correctly.
