Two Separate Wound Paths in JFK's Brain Prove Two Bullets Hit the Head

[Michael T. Griffith]

Almost like something tore at the bulk of the brain's right's side and caused things to tear below.

Oh, so a separate extended "tear"--read: wound path--just magically got created through and below the corpus callosum from a wound in the cowlick, never mind that there's no fragment trail within 2 inches of the subcortical damage, and no path or trail between the cortical and subcortical damage! Sorry, wound paths--or separate extended "tears"--don't happen like that.

Again, why do you suppose the Clark Panel and the HSCA FPP made no attempt to explain how a bullet entering at the cowlick site could have caused the subcortical damage? Why do you suppose they did not float your ludicrous explanation of the subcortical damage?

Before I continue, allow me to note that you said nothing about your erroneous claim that the subcortical damage was "superficial" ("minor" in your usage). Obviously, you were unaware that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of damaged tissue than the cortical damage. Your claim that the subcortical damage was superficial (minor) was the key assumption of your jostled-brain explanation.

But, as you usually do when you're caught peddling nonsense, you failed to acknowledge your error and continued to float your jostled-brain explanation. Throughout your time in this forum, this cycle has repeated itself over and over. You just bounce from one invalid claim to the next.

Allow me to also note that you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. Not one word. Gee, why not?

Allow me to also note that you said nothing about your bogus claim that the skull x-rays show no missing frontal bone, and that you did not answer any of my questions about the debunked cowlick entry site.

They [the autopsy doctors] don't say it's a missile path with an open tunnel with missing tissue, or say it was caused by a bullet.

LOL! I mean, really? Are you really making this argument, with a straight face?! The autopsy doctors didn't even describe the cortical damage or the high fragment trail, yet you infer from their failure to explicitly specify the cause of the subcortical damage that they didn't think it was caused by a bullet?! How in the world can anyone take your nonsense seriously?

If they didn't think the damage was caused by a bullet, one would think they would have said so. This was, after all, an autopsy report. The only cause of damage to the head that they mentioned was a bullet that entered slightly above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.

They specified that the bullet deposited a fragment trail that started near the EOP and went upward to a point just above the right orbit, and that the bullet's exit wound was above the right ear. As several scholars have noted, a bullet entering at the EOP site could have caused the subcortical damage--but not the cortical damage and the high fragment trail. This is undoubtedly why the autopsy doctors said nothing about the cortical damage and the high fragment trail.

A laceration can be a tear with no tissue missing. The out-folding of the right cerebrum in the brain photo could have caused the tear to be seen to be open. Or they manually opened the laceration to see how deep it went.

An amateurish, not-so-clever, dishonest dodge. Did you forget the point that the subcortical damage was much more extensive in terms of the amount of tissue damage than the cortical damage? Did that somehow slip your mind?

It's just amazing how often you pull this stunt of ignoring key contrary facts that have been pointed out to you and then repeating your position as if those facts do not exist.

Riley contends the following HSCA description of a "groove" corresponds to his "subcortical" missile path through the corpus callosum (drawing above).

    "On the right cerebral hemisphere is an anterior-posterior cylindrical
     groove in which the brain substance is fragmented or absent. This
     groove extends from the back of the brain to the right frontal area
     of the brain."

But, as one can see, they're describing the "right cerebral hemisphere", particularly the area near the midline, which would be above the corpus callosum. That's where the missing tissue is. However, Riley diminishes the traditional large laceration (whose height extended some 4.5cm from the vertex to its base) by claiming that brain matter, said to be missing and blown out by the HSCA, is actually present in the brain photograph but out-folded. Jack White would be proud.

Another amateurish, not-so-clever, and dishonest dodge. Did you forget the fact that, as Dr. Riley noted, the HSCA FPP said very little about the subcortical damage and provided only a brief, cursory, non-technical description of it? Did that key point slip your mind, or were you hoping that no one would notice your deception? Yet, according to you, Dr. Riley misrepresented the FPP's description of "the right cerebral hemisphere"! What an amazingly erroneous, misleading argument.

Moreover, you have simply ignored Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the FPP's brief, cursory description of the subcortical damage so you can falsely pretend that he misrepresented the FPP's description, when he did no such thing. You quoted the FPP's description but ignored Dr. Riley's three-paragraph explanation. Let's read what Dr. Riley wrote so everyone can see how dishonest and erroneous your argument is:

----------------------------------------------------
A description of all of the neuroanatomical structures involved is beyond the scope of this paper; however, by referring to Fig. 4D, the brain structures mentioned fall within or near the "groove" as described by the Panel. To understand this damage, it is important to keep several points in mind. First, when a bullet passes through the brain, it causes many types of damage in addition to direct mechanical damage from the missile. The multiple factors that can cause this additional damage need not be described here. The point, however, is that this wound may be viewed as a "cylinder of disruption" with a radius of approximately one inch that extends from back to front and passes through the center of the brain. Second, the wound passes near the midline. The brain is a bilateral structure but, for present purposes, it may be viewed as "joined together" except for the cerebral cortex. At the midline, the cortex "dips down" and two corresponding cortical regions (cingulate cortex) are located opposite of each other. A sheet of dura mater, termed the Falx, is located between the cigulate cortex on each hemisphere.

The subcortical damage is illustrated in Fig. 4A (HSCA exhibit F-302). (To the author's knowledge, there are no published photographs of the brain; however, the illustration is sufficient). To understand the relationship between the cortical and subcortical damage, it is crucial to understand what is shown and what is not. F-302 is NOT a view of the cortical damage ("cortical damage", as used here, refers to the dorsomedial cortex described previously upon which bullet fragments were distributed). What is illustrated is partially disrupted cingulate cortex that has shifted apparent location due to the disruption of brain tissue ventral (below) to it. In non-technical language, there is an outfolding of cortex due to its detachment from the brain tissue below it (in this case, largely the corpus callosum). Schematically, this is illustrated in Fig. 4F.

This interpretation is supported by the following evidence. First, the cingulate sulcus and parietooccipital sulcus are clearly evident (Figs. 4A-4D). The "grooves" on the cortical surface (sulci, singular is sulcus) and corresponding "ridges" (gyri, singular is gyrus) are arranged in an ordered and established pattern. The cingulate and parietooccipital sulci are located at the appropriate. position and there is no configuration of sulci on the dorsolateral surface that could account for this configuration. Since it is unlikely that many readers will be experienced neuroanatomists, it must be stressed that the identification of the cingulate sulcus is beyond reasonable doubt. The cigulate sulcus is found at the posteromedial margin of the postcentral gyrus. The precentral gyrus (primary motor cortex), postcentral gyrus (primary somatosensory cortex), and the central sulcus which separates them are well defined and unambiguous cortical landmarks. It is not a matter of differing interpretations; it is a matter of attending to the facts. There is no other valid interpretation. Anatomical landmarks can be obscured or obliterated by bullet wounds; they cannot be created. Second, as reviewed previously, the evidence accumulated by the Panel demonstrates that the cortical wound was relatively superficial; there had to be cortical tissue present for fragments to be distributed so near the surface of the brain. Finally, without discussing the effects of fixation on brain tissue in detail, the increase in surface area in the right hemisphere cannot be accounted for as "flattening" of the brain (see below). ("The Head Wounds of John Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries," pp. 11-12, http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf)
----------------------------------------------------

Dr. Riley prefaced the section on the subcortical damage with the following paragraph:

----------------------------------------------------
In addition to the cortical damage just described, there was massive subcortical damage. This subcortical damage was far more extensive in terms of volume of tissuedamaged than the damage to the superficial cerebral cortex. In non-technical language, in addition to damage to the outside layer of the brain, there was massive damage deep inside as well extending the entire anterior-posterior length of the brain. It will be difficult, without a background in neuroanatomy, to understand the extent of this damage based solely on the written descriptions; however, it is not difficult to understand the wounds when they are placed in their anatomical relationships. (p. 10)
----------------------------------------------------

I might add that not one of the HSCA FPP members was a neuroscientist.

Riley (and Griffith, the Mormon "scholar") apparently know more (or are comfortable with promoting fiction) than the HSCA and Clark Panel, the latter writing of the right cerebral hemisphere:

    "It is transected by a broad canal running generally in a posteroanterior
     direction and to the right of the midline. Much of the roof of this canal is
     missing, as are most of the overlying frontal and parietal gyri."

So you're doubling-down on your amateurish deception.

One, I will again note that none of the HSCA FPP members were neuroscientists. None of the Clark Panel members were neuroscientists, either. Heck, the Clark Panel erroneously claimed that the high fragment trail aligned with the cowlick site and also somehow magically corresponded to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report! As you surely know, the high fragment trail is 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick site and at least 10 cm above the starting point of the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report.

But you're so desperate to make people think that you have an answer for the subcortical damage that you apparently suffered another one of your frequent, convenient memory lapses about problems with your sources.

Two, what does the partial description of the brain damage in the right cerebrum that you quoted have to do with the subcortical damage? Did you notice that it refers to the "roof" (top) of the "canal" to the right of the midline? Did you not notice that it mentions that the "frontal and parietal gyri" are on top of the canal ("overlying frontal and parietal gyri")? Do you not know that these frontal gyri are at the top of the brain?

Either by ignorance or design, you happened to cherry pick the part of the Clark Panel's description of the brain damage that does not relate to the subcortical damage. You either did not realize how badly you were blundering, or else you thought that you could get away with such erroneous cherry-picking.

And, did you not notice that in the next paragraph the panel goes on to say that this damage was caused by a high-velocity bullet ("a single bullet travelling at high velocity") that entered at the cowlick site?! You know that the alleged murder rifle was a low-velocity weapon, as FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier specified to the WC, right? You know this, right? Let's read from Frazier's WC testimony:

----------------------------------------------------
Mr. EISENBERG. How does the recoil of this weapon [the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that Oswald supposedly used] compare with the recoil of the average military rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. Considerably less. The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is the killing power of the bullets essentially similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER. The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity. . . . (3 H 414, emphasis added)
----------------------------------------------------

The Clark Panel did not even know that the alleged murder weapon was a low-velocity rifle. They were right about the fact that the skull and brain damage indicate the use of a high-velocity rifle--they just did not know that the supposed murder weapon was not a high-velocity rifle. (I suspect that if they had known this, they would have worded that paragraph differently.)

I can tell that when someone is describing damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere", they're not describing a missile path thought the corpus callosum.

Yikes! One, see above. Two, the Clark Panel described both the cortical and subcortical damage but did not specify that the two areas of damage are separate and unconnected; they used wording that indicates that the corpus callosum damage is separate from the other damage they were describing, but they did not make the discontinuous nature of the two damaged areas clear--nor did they explain how the subcortical damage could have been caused by a bullet that entered at the cowlick site, a site that was far removed from the damage.

My "side" don't take damage to the "right cerebral hemisphere" and falsely apply it to invent a missile path thought the corpus callosum.

One, Dr. Riley did not do that, as we have just seen--rather, you engaged in your usual distortion and omission by ignoring the cursory nature of the HSCA FPP's description of the subcortical damage, and then by ignoring Dr. Riley's detailed explanation of the subcortical damage. Two, you said nothing about the damage below the corpus callosum. You ignored it because you can't explain it. Three, you said nothing about the fact that there is no connection between the cortical and subcortical damage, that the two areas of damage are separate and distinct. Four, you did not cite a single source that has challenged Dr. Riley's description of the cortical and subcortical damage. Your entire argument amounts to an argument from silence based only on your own inferences.

You made your false argument in response to the following questions that I posed to you:

(1) Does your side have anyone who has qualifications in neuroscience that are even close to those of Dr. Riley and who has disputed his description of the cortical and subcortical damage?

(2) Can you even cite me a single critical response to Dr. Riley's article that deals with this issue?

Are you going to answer these two straightforward questions?

[Michael T. Griffith]

Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.

Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.

This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.

Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.

[Jack Nessan]

Just giving this thread a bump after the few abortive attempts by WC apologists to explain the two separate wound paths in the brain.

Now is a good time to quote from another one of Dr. Riley's articles, "What Struck John," in which, among other things, he described the two separate areas of damage, damage that could not have been done caused by a single bullet:

The pattern of brain damage is inconsistent with a single bullet. The cavitation wound (a "cylinder of disruption" caused by the passage of a bullet) is linear. There is no evidence of continuity between the cavitation wound and the fragments in the right dorsolateral (upper right hand side) cortex. To use a crude analogy, if we cut an apple in half along the core and remove the core from one side of the apple, the part of the core that was removed resembles the location and size of the cavitation wound. In the HSCA trajectory, the bullet path is restricted to the outer (cortical) surface, almost tangent to the brain. Yet there is a cavitation wound along the length of the brain, deep and parallel to the cortical surface. The argument that the cavitation wound was produced by non-specific damage is illogical.

The cavitation wound corresponds exactly to a trajectory predicted from the observations of the autopsy prosectors. (https://kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/riley.html)

The point that the cavitation wound, i.e., the subcortical damage, is consistent with the autopsy doctors' observations helps us to understand why the autopsy doctors felt compelled, or were ordered, to ignore the high fragment trail and the cortical damage. Amazingly, not one word about this upper-skull damage appears in the autopsy report.

This also helps to understand why the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report vanished from the skull x-rays after the autopsy. It is significant that when the autopsy doctors reported on their five-hour November 1966 review of the autopsy x-rays and photos, they said nothing about the low fragment trail. In their January 1967 report on their five-hour review, they were clearly trying to justify and confirm their EOP location for the rear head entry wound, yet they said nothing about the low fragment trail, even though the trail would be strong evidence for the pathologists' EOP entry site.

Either the autopsy doctors simply fabricated the low fragment trail to support the EOP entry site, or the fragment trail was removed from the skull x-rays at some point after the autopsy and before the doctors' November 1966 review. Obviously, three pathologists and a radiologist would not have mistaken the high fragment trail for a trail that started at least 2 inches lower and that was nowhere near their EOP entry site.

What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.

[John Mytton]

What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.

Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.

At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!

95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots



94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.



JohnM

[Jack Nessan]

Yeah, Griffith is really struggling with the basics, and I don't recall too many, if any of his eyewitnesses, who say there was an entrance wound on the front of Kennedy's head.

At the end of the day, 95% of earwitnesses heard three shots or less and 94% of these earwitnesses only recall hearing shots from only one direction and since we know that both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind, therefore logically ALL the shots came from behind!
Besides a sniper in front when your Patsy was behind makes about as much sense as a Screen Door on a Submarine or a Chocolate Teapot!

95% of earwitnesses heard 3 or less shots



94% of Earwitnesses heard shots from only 1 direction.



JohnM

Exactly right.

If JFK's head had been hit by two bullets there would not have been a brain left to examine, let alone separate tracts or whatever it is he is rambling on about. I think he has himself all caught up in using big medical terms and doesn't apply simple logic and common sense to it all. I think Dr. Riley should have been institutionalized. He obviously did not have both feet firmly planted in reality. Is Dr Riley the guy who was an ophthalmologist or was it one of the other "experts" MTG quotes?

[Michael T. Griffith]

What this thread needs is for you to explain the location of the two entrance and exit wounds, which is the basis for this whole theory. Seems to be a real problem.

You must be kidding. So you're once again going to fall back on this dodge? What specifically does your question have to do with the two separate wound paths documented in the supplemental autopsy report (subcortical), in the HSCA FPP report (cortical), and in the Clark Panel report (both cortical and subcortical)? When are you going to venture to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have created the subcortical damage (and also deposited the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments that are below that site)?

The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.

Pay attention this time:

There was an entry wound in the right temple. The exit wound for this entry point was the large right occipital-parietal wound that dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, described seeing, and some of them even drew diagrams of the wound. Autopsy photo F8 shows a sizable occipital in the occipital region. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have confirmed with OD measurements that occipital bone is missing in the AP skull x-ray. The AP and lateral x-rays also show a defect in the right temple, and several witnesses, including mortician Tom Robinson, saw a small wound in the right temple.

There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull, which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. However, it is also possible that this bullet, or at least most of it, blew out the trapezoidal parietal skull fragment and the triangular frontal skull fragment and exited through the triangular defect, i.e., that it (or most of it) coursed through the parietal bone and exited from the rear portion of the frontal bone, about 1 inch from the right temple entry point, which would explain the sizable gap between the frontal defect and the parietal defect (the revealing gap that HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Baden was so desperate to hide). Both exit scenarios are plausible. I favor the first scenario but am open to the second one.

Are we clear?

[Jack Nessan]

You must be kidding. So you're once again going to fall back on this dodge? What specifically does your question have to do with the two separate wound paths documented in the supplemental autopsy report (subcortical), in the HSCA FPP report (cortical), and in the Clark Panel report (both cortical and subcortical)? When are you going to venture to explain how a bullet entering at the debunked cowlick site could have created the subcortical damage (and also deposited the high fragment trail and the two back-of-head fragments that are below that site)?

The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.

Pay attention this time:

There was an entry wound in the right temple. The exit wound for this entry point was the large right occipital-parietal wound that dozens of witnesses, in three different locations, described seeing, and some of them even drew diagrams of the wound. Autopsy photo F8 shows a sizable occipital in the occipital region. Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser have confirmed with OD measurements that occipital bone is missing in the AP skull x-ray. The AP and lateral x-rays also show a defect in the right temple, and several witnesses, including mortician Tom Robinson, saw a small wound in the right temple.

There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP. This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull, which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye. However, it is also possible that this bullet, or at least most of it, blew out the trapezoidal parietal skull fragment and the triangular frontal skull fragment and exited through the triangular defect, i.e., that it (or most of it) coursed through the parietal bone and exited from the rear portion of the frontal bone, about 1 inch from the right temple entry point, which would explain the sizable gap between the frontal defect and the parietal defect (the revealing gap that HSCA FPP chairman Dr. Baden was so desperate to hide). Both exit scenarios are plausible. I favor the first scenario but am open to the second one.

Are we clear?

Are we clear?

Not hardly. Why don't you flesh this theory out for better understanding. Which shot was first? Where was the mystery shooter located?

The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.

I have read your paper on CE 543 and why there were only two shots. That is all. With that in mind how is it possible that now you have three shots or more. You have two head shots where every eyewitness and several earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza stated there was only one. Garland Slack stated that there were only two shots just by the sound a bullet makes when it hits flesh. He obviously did not hear the muzzle blast or the impact sound of your second headshot.

There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.  This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye.


The bullet fragmented in the brain and there are two wound trails in this very explanation of the shot from behind.


This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual,

I would think it would be highly unusual for the bullet to remain. Why would it remain? Maybe another shot without enough powder behind it.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Are we clear?

Not hardly. Why don't you flesh this theory out for better understanding. Which shot was first? Where was the mystery shooter located?

What does any of this have to do with the two separate wound paths in the brain? Posing irrelevant questions does not deal with the core issue of the two separate wound paths. You cannot credibly deal with inconvenient facts by resorting to questions about theories.

The only "real problem" is your lack of reading. As you should know, I've written entire articles on the head wounds, and several chapters in my new book deal with the entry and exit wounds. I've also detailed my position on the head wounds in countless replies in this forum.

I have read your paper on CE 543 and why there were only two shots. That is all. With that in mind how is it possible that now you have three shots or more. You have two head shots where every eyewitness and several earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza stated there was only one. Garland Slack stated that there were only two shots just by the sound a bullet makes when it hits flesh. He obviously did not hear the muzzle blast or the impact sound of your second headshot.

This seems like a diversion and evasion based on your fringe theory of the shooting. There were at least six shots fired:

Reactions to Six Shots in the Zapruder Film
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nnp3Vch_KMOB_qufAhlQOCLTTS9jqNV0/view

Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WRwhDQ9HMydf5pICsHwgtkoNKw0YSO8T/view

There was an rear entry wound 1 cm above and 2.5 cm to the right of the EOP.  This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual, with a large part of it lodging near the right ear and with another part breaking up into fragments that went from near the EOP entry site to a point just above the right eye.

The bullet fragmented in the brain and there are two wound trails in this very explanation of the shot from behind.

Did you forget about the high fragment trail, which is nearly 2 inches above the debunked cowlick site and nearly 6 inches above the EOP site?

Anyway, my explanation does not posit two separate wound trails. I'm not sure where you're getting this from what I said. The two trails that my explanation allows would be connected, would be near each other, would diverge from a point near the EOP site, and could be associated with the EOP site. Moreover, my two connected wound trails would not include the high fragment trail.

This bullet probably broke up inside the skull and remained in the skull,which is not at all unusual,

I would think it would be highly unusual for the bullet to remain. Why would it remain? Maybe another shot without enough powder behind it.

No, it is not unusual for bullets to remain in the skull. From an article on the NIH website:

----------------------------------------------------------
Bullets or bullet fragments can cause penetrating injuries to the brain tissue and sometimes remain in the skull. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32671176/)
----------------------------------------------------------

Jen Danna, a retired medical researcher who writes on forensic and crime topics, in her article "Forensics 101," notes that bullets that hit skulls "often" cause both an entry wound and an exit wound--"often," not "always":

----------------------------------------------------------
Unlike blunt force trauma, gunshot wounds often cause both an entrance and an exit wound. ("Forensics 101: Bullet Wounds in Bone--the Skull," https://jenjdanna.com/blog/2013/4/2/forensics-101-bullet-wounds-in-bonethe-skull.html)
----------------------------------------------------------

In an article on the Justice Department website, H. Kijewski notes that lead bullets frequently do not create exit wounds when they hit skulls:

----------------------------------------------------------
While hard shell ammunition almost always penetrates both sides of the skull, lead bullets frequently do not. ("Determining Caliber, Bullet Type, and Velocity from the Morphology of the Wound in the Skull," https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/determining-caliber-bullet-type-and-velocity-morphology-wound-skull
----------------------------------------------------------

This is especially interesting because the bullet that struck the Tague curb was a lead bullet--a sample taken from the hole in the curb found no indication of copper or steel. (Of course, this caused the WC to float the crazy theory that a lead fragment from the alleged single headshot bullet, from the bullet's cross-section no less, somehow magically flew over the roll bar, traveled over 200 feet, and hit the curb with enough velocity to chip it or to directly hit Tague's right cheek and cut it.)

And notice, too, that Kijewski does not say that hard-shell ammo (i.e., FMJ ammo) always creates exit wounds but that it "almost always" does so--thus, even FMJ ammo will not always make an exit wound.

Even when bullets enter the body through soft tissue, they do not always create an exit wound. From an article on Medscape titled "Forensic Pathology of Firearm Wounds":

----------------------------------------------------------
. . .  a bullet may either exit the body, producing both entrance and exit wounds (perforating), or remain in the body. . . . (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview)
----------------------------------------------------------

An article in the British Medical Journal notes that during WWI, operations were frequently done on headshot victims "when the bullet remained in the skull":

----------------------------------------------------------
Operations were frequently undertaken when the bullet remained in the skull, but when it [the bullet] was not found at once, no extensive search was made for it, for fear of injuring the brain. . . . ("The War: Wounds of the Head and Brain," British Medical Journal, 2/19/1916,  p. 287, https://www.google.com/books/edition/British_Medical_Journal/g5BMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22bullet+remained+in+the+skull%22&pg=RA1-PA287&printsec=frontcover
----------------------------------------------------------

So, yes, it would have been possible for a bullet to have hit JFK's skull without creating an exit wound.