The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 14, 2026, 01:32:05 AM ---Another of your FUBAR premises for which you are so well known. No bullet hit JFK in the back on the an upward angle. If you think so, tell us where it could ahve been fired from that made sense.
--- End quote ---
Michael T. Griffith professes a Christian faith. Yet he continues to repeat the false claim that the HSCA's FPP concluded that the bullet entered JFK at an upward angle? What are reasonable people to make of that? Is he an unrepentant liar or is he just stupid? I honestly don't know for sure, but I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt that it's the latter. For now anyway.
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 13, 2026, 09:07:46 PM ---The replies from WC defenders amount to this position:
"Never mind that no bullet fired from the sixth-floor window could have hit JFK's back at an upward angle and then passed through his neck at an upward angle. Never mind that this means no bullet from the sixth-floor window could have exited JFK's throat at a downward angle, much less at a 25-degree downward angle. Never mind that we therefore cannot get a bullet from JFK's throat to Connally's back in the first place, unless we're willing to rule out the sixth-floor window as the source of the shot. Just never mind these facts.
"We will continue to excuse ourselves from credibly dealing with these facts until you provide us with a non-SBT trajectory through Connally -- and the trajectory has to be one that we are willing to accept, but of course we will never accept any such trajectory because that would raise further doubt about the SBT.
"Moreover, we will continue to refuse to acknowledge the self-evident implications of the hard physical evidence of JFK's clothing, specifically, the fact that JFK's tie, including the tie knot, had no bullet hole through it, and that the nick on the tie knot was not on the edge of the knot but was visibly inward from the edge, because acknowledging the import of these facts would mean admitting that no bullet exited the throat. In the case of the SBT, we judge fact by theory, not the other way around."
We should keep in mind that the HSCA FPP's SBT does not merely require that JFK's head was tilted substantially forward but that his upper torso was tilted substantially forward as well, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate.
As many here know, I am by no means the first researcher to note that the HSCA FPP's SBT is actually fatal to the SBT because no photo or footage shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's timeframe. By acknowledging that the WC placed the back wound at least 2.5 inches too high and that the bullet hit and tunneled at an upward angle, the FPP actually destroyed the SBT. Dr. Wecht repeatedly made this point in his presentations on the SBT.
As I documented in a previous reply, both the NOVA and the Dale Myers SBT trajectory animations have JFK's upper torso virtually upright and have his head either upright (NOVA) or tilted only slightly forward (Myers), and they have the bullet traveling a downward path from the back wound to the throat wound.
And, of course, Lattimer's bogus SBT diagrams, which continue to be used by many WC apologists to this very day, show JFK sitting upright with his head upright, place the back wound visibly above the throat wound, show the bullet traveling downward through the neck, and show the bullet exiting the neck at a downward angle of at least 20 degrees.
No WC apologist has yet produced an SBT trajectory illustration that takes into account the forensic facts pointed out by the HSCA FPP regarding the back wound's upward trajectory, the upward trajectory through the neck, and the pronounced forward lean required to make that trajectory align with the sixth-floor window.
Indeed, even the NASA expert whom the HSCA hired to do their headshot and SBT trajectory analyses, Dr. Thomas Canning, simply ignored the HSCA FPP's diagram showing JFK's forward lean (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) and instead showed JFK sitting virtually upright with his head virtually upright as well (2 HSCA 177, JFK Exhibit F-142). Incredibly, Canning also impossibly showed the back wound above the throat wound and showed the bullet exiting at a point visibly below JFK's throat wound.
--- End quote ---
Thank you Sherlock for helping with seeing the light. The whole investigation with certain known facts is the wrong way to view the assassination. Make up your own facts, that is way better. Claim people stated things that they didn't. The shooter was not on the sixth floor 8 feet above Williams, Norman, and Jarmin. He was really down on the street about level with the trunk of the car. Who would have thunk it. Who cares about JFK's and JBC's wounds and the bullet trajectory through their bodies. Obviously the doctors had no idea what they were doing. Greer should have driven the car down the road to a pet clinic and JFK and JBC would have gotten better medical care by people who knew all about gunshot wounds. I am sorry, I had this all wrong about you, I need to add the word savant to the word idiot.
Thanks Michael for all you do. Your knowledge of the assassination is unsurpassed. We all owe you a deep debt of gratitude. It is a debt that can never be repaid.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 12, 2026, 03:40:36 AM ---Baden was one of several members of the HSCA's FPP who believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward". They were wrong. The majority of that 9 member panel disagreed with them. You have falsely claimed that "several members" equals a majority.
--- End quote ---
You again blunder over information that has been known for decades. First off, you realize that the term "several" can refer to as many as nine or 10, right? You can Google it.
If a majority of the FPP disagreed with the upward-trajectory finding, why does the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) show the bullet traveling upward through the neck and show JFK leaning substantially forward? Why did Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, demonstrate an upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary, and why did Baden then lean markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window? And, why does the FPP's report say that the back wound's abrasion collar is "evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body"? Let's read what the FPP said on this issue:
A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)
Of course, one major problem is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning as far forward as the FPP and Baden had to assume he was.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 12, 2026, 03:40:36 AM ---The FPP determined that the entry wound was superior to the ribs. T1 being the uppermost vertebra of the ribs.
--- End quote ---
Uh, yes, I already pointed this out. You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12). Here's a link to it:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg (left image of diagram)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.htm (both images of diagram)
Notice that the diagram shows the bullet entering slightly below the throat wound. Why do you suppose that not a single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges the FPP's location for the back wound and the FPP's depiction of an upward trajectory through the neck? Humm? Why do you suppose that is?
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 12, 2026, 03:40:36 AM ---Humes was not responsible for the drawings. His placement of the wound on the drawings was too high.
--- End quote ---
What?! The drawing was made under Humes's direction and instruction. The medical artist, Harold Rydberg, only drew what Humes told him to draw; Humes presented the drawing to the WC as an accurate depiction of the SBT's trajectory through the neck; and the WC cited the drawing three times in the Warren Report and published it as an exhibit. The drawing, CE 385, shows the back wound above the throat wound and has the bullet traveling downward through the neck.
And every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration, from Lattimer's diagrams to Myers' fraudulent animation, erroneously has the mythical magic bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 12, 2026, 03:40:36 AM ---However, his testimony that the wound was in the low neck was probably correct.
--- End quote ---
T1 is not in the "low neck." The neck ends at C7. The "C" stands for "cervical." The "T" stands for "thoracic." The FPP correctly referred to the T1 location as being "in the back area" and noted it was "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in CE 385 (1 HSCA 256).
It is just incredible that you guys still refuse to deal with the fact that the only way to make the T1 location and its upward trajectory work for the SBT is to make the demonstrably false assumption that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
Your denial of obvious reality here is akin to your long-standing refusal to acknowledge the fact that JFK's clothing clearly, self-evidently refutes any notion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. Objective people can read your grasping replies in my threads "JFK's Clothing Refutes the Single-Bullet Theory" and "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" and see that you guys have no tenable, sensible explanation for the clothing evidence.
If you guys were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence, you would have abandoned the SBT way back when we learned (1) that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and (2) that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat were over 5 inches below the collar.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 15, 2026, 12:49:20 PM ---You again blunder over information that has been known for decades. First off, you realize that the term "several" can refer to as many as nine or 10, right? You can Google it.
If a majority of the FPP disagreed with the upward-trajectory finding, why does the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) show the bullet traveling upward through the neck and show JFK leaning substantially forward? Why did Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, demonstrate an upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary, and why did Baden then lean markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window? And, why does the FPP's report say that the back wound's abrasion collar is "evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body"? Let's read what the FPP said on this issue:
A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)
Of course, one major problem is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning as far forward as the FPP and Baden had to assume he was.
--- End quote ---
When there were no dissenting views, the report says "the panel". When there were dissenting views but still a majority view, the report says "a majority of the panel". "Several members of the panel" is several members, not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority. Baden was one of the several. He used his influence to have those drawings published in the report as "possible trajectories through the neck". In his later interviews in which he leans markedly forward, Baden was representing his view and that of two or three others of the panel.
On edit: The report, in at least one entry, does say "Most panel members".
--- Quote ---Uh, yes, I already pointed this out. You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12). Here's a link to it:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg
Notice that the diagram shows the bullet entering slightly below the throat wound. Why do you suppose that not a single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges the FPP's location for the back wound and the FPP's depiction of an upward trajectory through the neck? Humm? Why do you suppose that is?
--- End quote ---
You already pointed what out? What does "superior" mean? T1 was not below the throat wound.
No single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges that the bullet made an upward trajectory through the neck because not even the "several members of the FPP" believed that the bullet made an upward path through the neck. I'm not aware of a single maker of a Pro-SBT diagram who agreed, or agrees, with the 11 degree angle belief of those several members of the HSCA FPP.
The FPP placed the "back wound" about 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. That skin fold is also visible in the left lateral view. The wound in the throat is also visible in that left lateral view. The Clark Panel measured the wound in the throat to be 9 cm below that fold in the skin of the neck.
--- Quote ---What?! The drawing was made under Humes's direction and instruction. The medical artist, Harold Rydberg, only drew what Humes told him to draw; Humes presented the drawing to the WC as an accurate depiction of the SBT's trajectory through the neck; and the WC cited the drawing three times in the Warren Report and published it as an exhibit. The drawing, CE 385, shows the back wound above the throat wound and has the bullet traveling downward through the neck.
--- End quote ---
Humes was not standing over Rydberg's shoulder as Rydberg made his drawings. He was not responsible for how the drawings turned out.
--- Quote ---And every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration, from Lattimer's diagrams to Myers' fraudulent animation, erroneously has the mythical magic bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck.
T1 is not in the "low neck." The neck ends at C7. The "C" stands for "cervical." The "T" stands for "thoracic." The FPP correctly referred to the T1 location as being "in the back area" and noted it was "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in CE 385 (1 HSCA 256).
It is just incredible that you guys still refuse to deal with the fact that the only way to make the T1 location and its upward trajectory work for the SBT is to make the demonstrably false assumption that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
--- End quote ---
Every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration has the single bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck because Humes said that it did in his sworn WC testimony. That same testimony that both Boswell and Finck said that they concurred with in their own sworn WC testimonies.
Low neck is the low neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the low neck.
Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in 385, in 386 and in 388.
....
Commander HUMES - You will note that the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet discussed in the low neck.
.....
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
.....
Commander HUMES - In attempting to relate findings within the President's body to this wound which we had observed low in his neck, we then opened his chest cavity, and we very carefully examined the lining of his chest cavity and both of his lungs.
.....
Commander HUMES - The angle which we observed in measuring, in comparing the point of entrance, our point of entrance labeled "C" on 385 and "D" point of exit is one that the point of exit is below the point of entrance compared with the vertical.
.....
Commander HUMES - The report which we have submitted, sir, represents our thinking within the 24-48 hours of the death of the President, all facts taken into account of the situation.
The wound in the anterior portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly, sir.
Both Boswell and Finck concurred with Humes in their own sworn WC testimonies.
JFK's physique gave the impressive that he was hunched forward. Using the Croft photo, Thomas Canning estimated him to be hunched forward between 11 and 18 degrees.
--- Quote ---Your denial of obvious reality here is akin to your long-standing refusal to acknowledge the fact that JFK's clothing clearly, self-evidently refutes any notion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. Objective people can read your grasping replies in my threads "JFK's Clothing Refutes the Single-Bullet Theory" and "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" and see that you guys have no tenable, sensible explanation for the clothing evidence.
--- End quote ---
JFK's jacket can clearly be seen to be bunched up as the motorcade made it's way through Dallas. Considering that the hole in the shirt matches up with the hole in the jacket, we can safely assume that it was bunched up as well. 1 inch of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 2 inches. 1.5 inches of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 3 inches. That's factoring in the crown.
--- Quote ---If you guys were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence, you would have abandoned the SBT way back when we learned (1) that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and (2) that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat were over 5 inches below the collar.
--- End quote ---
If you were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence you would accept that the single bullet theory should be known as the single bullet fact. You would not be denying the evidence. You would accept that the autopsy photos and x-Rays are genuine and unaltered. You would accept that the entry wound on Kennedy was between 5 and 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin on the back of the neck.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 15, 2026, 12:49:20 PM ---You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram
--- End quote ---
Here's an FPP drawing that helps to illustrate my point that T1 was above the throat wound:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version