This is a possible explanation but that is not how Bennett described it in his notes. He described hearing a noise and “immediately” looking and at “that exact time” seeing a “shot that hit” the President.  This is why it is so unfortunate that he was not examined by the WC to clarify. 
You have obviously not come across the early work of the FBI who described a first shot when JFK passed the lamp post just before the Thornton sign; the third at z313 and second closer to the last than the first.  They even made models:

That is exactly how Bennett described it in his report which is unambiguous and needs no clarification. Anyone with fifth grade reading comprehension can understand what he wrote.

Mark Wyatt, who served as Harvey’s deputy, told a French journalist in 1998 that he saw Harvey on a flight to Dallas in November 1963. Wyatt found this strange because Harvey was stationed in Italy at the time.

Based on Harvey’s flight to Dallas in November 1963 and on comments that Harvey made about JFK’s death, Wyatt told his children that he believed Harvey either had advance knowledge of the assassination or was involved in it.

Wyatt’s daughter urged him to testify to the HSCA, but he could not bring himself to do it because of his sense of loyalty to the CIA.

Who would have had anything to do with Harvey? Well, for one group, people who shared his intense hatred of JFK. He was, after all, the CIA station chief in Rome, and before that he headed the CIA's assassination program. Citing an isolated public display of bad conduct due to drunkenness does not mean Harvey was incompetent. He continued to work for the CIA into early 1967, and then he took an extended leave of absence and then retired in 1968.

Readers who have seen our previous exchanges on this issue will see that you are now just lying through your teeth and are continuing to simply make up nonsense, not to mention that you are acting like a rude teenager who knows he's losing the argument--and losing it badly.

They'll see that you are still ducking the skull x-rays from the WC's headshot wound-ballistics test, which show minimal bullet fragmentation. They'll see that I've quoted a number of forensic and ballistics experts on the behavior of FMJ bullets, and that you obviously have no answer for the cold, hard facts about FMJ bullet behavior.

They will find it odd that you comically accuse me of not providing sources when I have provided numerous sources (including page numbers therein) for my statements, and when you almost never provide any sources to back up your bogus claims.

They will notice that you still haven't explained the fact that every expert who has examined the medical evidence and commented on it has said the skull damage indicates the bullet was traveling at a high velocity.

If they read the 2022 Science Direct summary article that you linked (I just have to chuckle about this), they will see that the article says the JFK skull damage was done by the "high-speed impact" of a bullet--but, again, the alleged murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. They will notice that the study was purely computational and virtual and was not based on any actual JFK headshot wound-ballistics tests. They will notice that the study does not even address the known behavior of FMJ bullets when they strike skull bone. And, they will notice that not one of the four authors of that study had ever written a single article on a forensic/ballistics issue before they wrote their 2022 "ballistic analysis" of JFK's head damage.

Here we go again. I have to explain what should be obvious. There is no standard definition of what constitutes a high velocity round. Without such a definition, one person or group could consider the 6.5mm Carcano round high velocity and someone else might not. It's all relative.

(The four authors' previous articles deal with such subjects as the viscoelasticity of human gluteal tissue, metabolic consequences of persistence of visceral obesity and diabetes, radiation dose-dependent skin toxicity, the adhesion and invasion of renal cell carcinoma cells, strategy of robotic surgeons to exert public influence through Twitter, laser-induced thermotherapy using MR thermometry, vitamin D deficiency in orthopedic patients, cartilage chip transplantation for cartilage defects, and periprosthetic joint infection and low vitamin D levels. What happened to your phony position that only the opinions of forensic experts who have examined the autopsy materials at the National Archives count?)

Just admit it. You're pissed because another scientific body shot down your silly arguments.

They will find it especially odd that you are still claiming that "every forensic expert" who has examined and commented on the JFK medical evidence has "concluded JFK was shot from above and behind," when I've proved to you that this is not true, and when this does not even address the issue of the ammo's behavior. They will also find it quite revealing that you once again allude to Guinn's debunked NAA findings. And on and on I could go.

You could go on and on lying because that is the only thing you're good for. I didn't even mention Guinn in any recent post and the only time I ever have was in response to one of your lame arguments. In 35 years of debating this subject online, I have never come across anyone who exhibits less integrity in his arguments than you. It speaks volumes about the weakness of your arguments that you have to lie so blatantly to make them. You are truly pathetic.

You see, I know that you're never going to deal with this issue in an honest, credible manner. I realize that. You've proved in spades. You've done nothing but duck and dodge and grasp and blunder in trying to explain the fact that the ammo that hit JFK's head behaved nothing like FMJ ammo.

The biggest liar on this or any other forum is calling me a liar.

Let me refresh your memory with quotes from Dr. DiMaio's internationally acclaimed forensic book Gunshot Wounds that I've presented to you several times now and that you just keep dodging:

An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet has perforated bone such as the skull or spine.If any fragments are seen, they are very sparse in number. . . .(Gunshot Wounds, p. 166)

In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a 'lead snowstorm'. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug. (Gunshot Wounds, p. 318, emphasis added)

Again, did you catch that? Did you see where DiMaio said (1) in the "rare" cases when FMJ bullets do fragment if they penetrate bone, they will only leave "a few" fragments, and (2) if an x-ray shows a "lead snowstorm," this "rules out" FMJ ammo?

As a general rule, that's probably true. Unless he has studied cases of how a Carcano bullet reacts when striking a skull, it really isn't pertinent.

But, of course, I'm fairly certain you'll just continue to lie, duck, dodge, grasp, and blunder about this fact.

I don't need to lie to make my points. Thut's your ballgame.

BTW, if rifles are almost never used in gunshot cases involving headshots except in wartime, why do forensic and ballistics sources state that FMJ bullets will not shatter into dozens of tiny fragments when striking skull bone? What is their basis for saying this? Huh?

I notice you offered nothing that refutes my statement regarding how few homicides are committed with all rifles with all types of ammo. Lots of homicides are committed with FMJ ammo. Most of them are from handguns, which aren't relevant to this discussion.

I bet I know: I bet they base that statement of fact on known forensic cases. If the present is any indication of the past, then this should not be surprising. Why? Well, in 2020 and 2021 rifles were used in murders over 900 times; rifles were used 570 times in 2022 murders; rifles were used 533 times in 2023 murders, and rifles were used 401 times in 2024 murders (https://www.gunowners.org/wp-content/uploads/FBI_UCR_Expanded_Homicide_Data_Table_8_Murder_Victims_by_Weapon_2020-2024-1.pdf).

How many homicides do you think they have studied which shows what a FMJ Carcano bullet will do when striking a human skull. I only know of one case in which that happened. It is poor science to assume that all FMJ bullets will behave the same way when striking a human skull. I have no doubt you will now accuse me of dodging when in reality I'm applying critical thinking to your claims, something you should have done for yourself.

If only 10% of those cases involved headshots with FMJ ammo, that would make over 230 cases involving headshots with FMJ ammo, and, again, FMJ ammo is one of the three most common types of ammo.

I seriously doubt they have studied that many cases of FMJ RIFLE ammo and certainly not FMJ Carcano ammo which is quite rare.

So you can drop your bogus claim that we have very little information on the behavior of FMJ bullets when they hit skulls. We also have the WC's, Lattimer's, and Fackler's headshot wound ballistics tests, none of which produced FMJ bullets that shattered into dozens of fragments, not to mention FMJ bullets that also deposited several small fragments on the outer table of the skull upon impact, created a fragment trail disconnected from any entry wound, and magically deposited two fragments at the opposite and of the skull at least 1 inch from any fragment trail.

You continue to fail to grasp that without case studies of FMJ Carcano ammo striking skulls, these studies have limited value in determining how such bullets will behave when striking skulls. The people who have made these observations were not addressing that question so it is understandable why they would not consider such ammo when making their general observations. Without specific studies of the type of ammo used by LHO, it is poor science to categorically state what such ammo would do. When the Haags did their experiments for the NOVA program, they used the same type of rifle and ammo that LHO used because that is what is relevant to the issues they were addressing.

Funny how they missed hearing that first “horrible ear-shattering noise” yet the vast majority still heard three shots.

Your "vast majority" undoubtedly heard the masking roar of four accelerating Harley Davison motorcycles (but didn't mention said roar in their statements), two shots approximately five seconds apart (the CE-399 shot at around Z-222 and the Z-313 fatal head shot), and echoes from one or both of those two shots in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.

Mary Woodward and at least one of her three journalistic colleagues were among the few witnesses who discerned either a "backfire" or a "firecracker" among the roar of the motorcycles.

Said "firecracker" / "backfire" was Oswald's first, missing-everything, early shot.

D'oh

What they mistakenly thought was the first shot.

As John Corbett has already posted, the sounds of at least four accelerating Harley Davison motorcycles probably prevented them from hearing Oswald's first, missing-everything, shot (at "Z-24," half-a-second before Zapruder resumed filming at Z-133).

Funny how they missed hearing that first “horrible ear-shattering noise” yet the vast majority still heard three shots.