The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate

Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

(1/18) > >>

Michael T. Griffith:
The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

Jack Nessan:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 11, 2026, 12:40:38 PM ---The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

--- End quote ---

Can you break it all down showing why Dr Baden is correct? You are already alluding to the difference between trajectory of the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC. How about explain the medical information that backs up your claim. Do you have any pictures of the other bullet needed to accomplish your fantastic claim. Will you also explain where the other shooter was located to put a bullet on a downward 45 degree angle through JBC and also the correct transverse left to right angle through JBC. This is really fascinating and I would really like to learn more from you.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 11, 2026, 04:42:02 PM ---Can you break it all down showing why Dr Baden is correct? You are already alluding to the difference between trajectory of the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC. How about explain the medical information that backs up your claim. Do you have any pictures of the other bullet needed to accomplish your fantastic claim. Will you also explain where the other shooter was located to put a bullet on a downward 45 degree angle through JBC and also the correct transverse left to right angle through JBC. This is really fascinating and I would really like to learn more from you.
--- End quote ---

This is just a ball of evasion, error, and confusion.

Look, this isn't rocket science. The WC put the wound at C3/C4, above the throat wound, because they claimed the bullet traveled downward through the neck. The HSCA FPP put the wound at T1, below the throat wound, and said the bullet hit at an upward angle and traveled through the body at an upward angle. Baden was simply demonstrating how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning when the bullet hit to enable this shot to align with the sixth-floor window.

Like it or not, the HSCA FPP exploded the SBT -- unless, of course, you can find a photo or frame that shows JFK leaning that far forward during the timeframe of the alleged SBT hit. 

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?

No, you would not "like to learn more." Your mind is locked shut and sealed with super glue against any evidence that debunks the SBT, no matter how compelling and self-evident the evidence is. SBT believers should have realized they were abjectly wrong decades ago when we learned that the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were over 5 inches below the collar and that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. You guys are like Flat Earthers who refuse to acknowledge that satellite photos of the Earth refute their theory.

Jack Nessan:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 11, 2026, 06:02:36 PM ---This is just a ball of evasion, error, and confusion.

Look, this isn't rocket science. The WC put the wound at C3/C4, above the throat wound, because they claimed the bullet traveled downward through the neck. The HSCA FPP put the wound at T1, below the throat wound, and said the bullet hit at an upward angle and traveled through the body at an upward angle. Baden was simply demonstrating how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning when the bullet hit to enable this shot to align with the sixth-floor window.

Like it or not, the HSCA FPP exploded the SBT -- unless, of course, you can find a photo or frame that shows JFK leaning that far forward during the timeframe of the alleged SBT hit. 

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?

No, you would not "like to learn more." Your mind is locked shut and sealed with super glue against any evidence that debunks the SBT, no matter how compelling and self-evident the evidence is. SBT believers should have realized they were abjectly wrong decades ago when we learned that the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were over 5 inches below the collar and that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. You guys are like Flat Earthers who refuse to acknowledge that satellite photos of the Earth refute their theory.

--- End quote ---

Nobody is confused here. The reasons this is idiotic are obvious. I cannot vouch for where you are. It must be rocket science to you or how do we explain how lost you always seem to be. Is it too late to edit this out of your fictional book?

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?


None other than your Dr Baden.

Measured by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel
The second authoritative measurement came from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) medical panel in 1978.
This panel included:

Dr. Michael Baden (Chief Medical Examiner, NYC)

Dr. John Coe

Dr. Charles Petty

Dr. Werner Spitz

Dr. Richard Lindenberg

Dr. Robert McMeekin

Dr. George Loquvam

They reviewed Connally’s medical records, X‑rays, surgical notes, and the Warren Commission diagrams.

Their conclusion:

Downward angle inside the torso ≈ 45°

Medial (right‑to‑left) angle ≈ 10

You are posting this nonsense without knowing what you are talking about?

Now that you have been brought current into the real world. Explain where the shooter was located and explain why the medical evidence does not make you look like a fool.

For this kind of stupidity to have a chance of being valid it would be nice of you to produce a bullet responsible for it.

John Corbett:

--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 11, 2026, 12:40:38 PM ---The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

--- End quote ---

Since the autopsy team and the FPP placed the entrance wound in different locations, it would be impossible for the SBT to work with both placements. For the SBT to be valid, it only needs to work with one of those two placements and it does. The discrepancy between the autopsy placement of the wound and the FPP placement of the wound doesn't invalidate the SBT. It invalidates the FPP.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page