The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory
Mitch Todd:
--- 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 ---
The back wound abrasion collar does indeed show that the bullet entered at an angle slightly upward with respect to the surface of the skin at that location. IIRC, someone many years ago determined that the the upward angle was about 7 degrees from perpendicular to the surface. However, it is important to remember that the wound was located in the trapezius muscle above the top of the scapula, and when upright, the body surface in this area has a considerable forward slant. A normal vector drawn from any point in this area perpendicular to the surface of the body will then point upwards more than seven degrees. That is, the bullet can be travelling downwards in the cardinal axes and still be travelling "upwards" when it hits am angles surface.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 18, 2026, 12:40:18 AM ---It was bunched up. And I disagree with you that it didn't need to be. I don't understand how you determined that Arlen Specter showed that it didn't need to be. Maybe I need more coffee.
--- End quote ---
The picture I posted of Specter holding the rod at the approximate trajectory of the single bullet shows the trajectory works without the jacket being bunched. A white chalk mark had been placed on the agent's coat 5 1/2 inches down from the top of the collar. Specter held the rod to the right of that spot. The rod passes to the right of the knot in the agent's tie and on to the entry point on the back of the agent taking the place of JBC.
What that picture also shows is the natural slope in a man's upper back which I estimate to be about 45 degrees for the agent pictured. The geometry is such that the vertical separation between the entry point on the back and the top of the collar is less than 5 1/2 inches. Those who remember their high school geometry can figure that the 5 1/2 inches is the hypotenuse of an equilateral right triangle and the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides. 5.5 squared is 30.25. The vertical separation between the top of the collar is the square root of (30.25/2) which comes out to 3.89 inches rounded. Of course, this is an approximation because I doubt the slope of that agent's upper back is exactly 45 degrees.
There are pictures taken during the course of the motorcade show that at some points the jacket is bunched and at other points it is not. The image below is the closest I can find to the time of the single bullet and it does not appear to me that JFK's coat is bunched at the top.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1352810/m1/1/high_res/
The slope in JFK's upper back looks to be a little less than 45 degrees, which changes the calculation but a I think we can safely say the vertical separation between the top of JFK's jacket is less than the 5 1/2 inches.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 18, 2026, 04:15:14 AM ---The picture I posted of Specter holding the rod at the approximate trajectory of the single bullet shows the trajectory works without the jacket being bunched. A white chalk mark had been placed on the agent's coat 5 1/2 inches down from the top of the collar. Specter held the rod to the right of that spot. The rod passes to the right of the knot in the agent's tie and on to the entry point on the back of the agent taking the place of JBC.
--- End quote ---
Specter didn't hold the rod at the level of the chalk mark. As you can see below, the rod was somewhat above where the chalk mark on the jacket was.
--- Quote ---What that picture also shows is the natural slope in a man's upper back which I estimate to be about 45 degrees for the agent pictured. The geometry is such that the vertical separation between the entry point on the back and the top of the collar is less than 5 1/2 inches. Those who remember their high school geometry can figure that the 5 1/2 inches is the hypotenuse of an equilateral right triangle and the square of the hypotenuse of a right triangle is equal to the sum of the square of the two adjacent sides. 5.5 squared is 30.25. The vertical separation between the top of the collar is the square root of (30.25/2) which comes out to 3.89 inches rounded. Of course, this is an approximation because I doubt the slope of that agent's upper back is exactly 45 degrees.
--- End quote ---
What that picture shows is a fairly good representation of the path of the bullet through Kennedy. Not perfect though, But it does show that the vertical angle of single bullet trajectory could work
--- Quote ---There are pictures taken during the course of the motorcade show that at some points the jacket is bunched and at other points it is not. The image below is the closest I can find to the time of the single bullet and it does not appear to me that JFK's coat is bunched at the top.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1352810/m1/1/high_res/
The slope in JFK's upper back looks to be a little less than 45 degrees, which changes the calculation but a I think we can safely say the vertical separation between the top of JFK's jacket is less than the 5 1/2 inches.
--- End quote ---
There are numerous photos of Kennedy throughout the motorcade that show his jacket to be bunched up. The photo that you linked to is of rather poor quality. The Croft photo is the closest to the time of the single bullet shot in which the bunchup can be seen. You can't see it the best but it's there.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Gallery/Croft%20Gallery/croft~0_small.jpg
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 18, 2026, 05:58:29 AM ---Specter didn't hold the rod at the level of the chalk mark. As you can see below, the rod was somewhat above where the chalk mark on the jacket was.
--- End quote ---
In that photo, he is holding the rod above the chalk mark. He is demonstrating the right to left trajectory of the bullet. In the photo taken from the other side, he is holding the rod lower to the side of the chalk mark to show the downward angle of the shot. He couldn't shot both at the same time without skewering the agent.
--- Quote ---
What that picture shows is a fairly good representation of the path of the bullet through Kennedy. Not perfect though, But it does show that the vertical angle of single bullet trajectory could work.
--- End quote ---
The picture I posted shows the vertical angle. The picture you posted has the rod well above the entry point and is showing the right to left trajectory.
--- Quote ---
There are numerous photos of Kennedy throughout the motorcade that show his jacket to be bunched up.
--- End quote ---
There are other photos in which the jacket is not bunched. The question is whether it was bunched at the time the single bullet struck.
--- Quote ---
The photo that you linked to is of rather poor quality. The Croft photo is the closest to the time of the single bullet shot in which the bunchup can be seen. You can't see it the best but it's there.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Gallery/Croft%20Gallery/croft~0_small.jpg
--- End quote ---
The Croft photo was taken much earlier in the motorcade somewhere between Love Field and downtown. The photo I showed is of good enough quality to show there was no bunching of the jacket and it appears to be in front of the TSBD, just seconds before the first shot. That tells me the jacket was not bunched when the single bullet struck JFK in the back.
You are trying to use the bunched jacket argument to show that the entry wound wasn't vertically 5 1/2 inches below the top of the jacket. The entry wound wasn't that low but not because of the bunched jacket. It was because the jacket was not vertical on JFK's back and the sloping angle made the vertical separation less than the 5 1/2 inch distance between the top of the collar and the bullet hole in the jacket. I would estimate the vertical separation would be about 4 inches.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 16, 2026, 03:39:08 PM ---Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 16, 2026, 02:49:48 PM
I'm sure readers have noticed that WC apologists, as evidenced by Tim Nickerson's labored and errant replies, still have not been able to explain the fact that the back-wound bullet could not have come from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the missile struck, and that no photo or frame shows JFK's head tilted anywhere near that far forward, if at all.
Incredibly, Nickerson can't even admit what the HSCA's SBT diagram plainly shows, and he's still erroneously denying that Rydberg drew CE 385 under Humes's direct and point-by-point supervision, even though Humes and Rydberg themselves made this clear. I find it amazing that Nickerson actually cites Humes's descriptions of the back wound to support the claim that the wound was in the neck and not in the back, never mind the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's clothing, never mind the autopsy photo of the back wound, never mind the autopsy face sheet, never mind the "certified" death certificate, and never mind the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram. I see Nickerson even resorts to the ridiculous bunched-clothing theory, ignoring the fact that no photo or frame shows the jacket bunched nearly enough to make the holes align with a wound several inches higher, and ignoring the fact that Willis slide 5, taken much closer to the moment of impact, shows the jacket virtually flat on JFK's back.
It is worth remembering that Dr. Werner Spitz, a prominent forensic pathologist who served on the RC's medical panel and on the HSCA FPP, informed the RC in 1975 that there was "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the back "in a sharply upward direction" and that it traveled "upwards within the body":
There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers)
Same useless crap.
--- End quote ---
So to you it is "useless crap" to note that a renowned forensic pathologist who served on both the RC medical panel and the HSCA FPP said there is "no doubt" that the back-wound bullet hit the skin "in a sharply upward direction" and that the missile "traveled upwards within the body"?! That's your idea of "useless crap" when your SBT requires that the bullet hit at a downward angle and traveled downward through the neck?!
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 16, 2026, 03:39:08 PM ---Stop being such a coward, stop hiding. Explain a separate wound to JBC if you don't think SBT is correct. Here are the facts you can use. 45 Degree downward angle through JBC's chest with a 10 degree medial angle right to left, this should help with your explanation.
--- End quote ---
Oh my. So you are still peddling the preposterous claim that the Connally bullet traveled at a 45-degree downward angle through his chest?!
I notice you once again said nothing about the fact that Dr. Shaw measured the downward angle through Connally on Connally himself as being 25 degrees, and that the WC agreed with this. Let's read what the Warren Report says about this -- yet again:
When Governor Connally testified before the Commission 5 months after the assassination, on April 21, 1964, the Commission observed the Governor's chest wounds, as well as the injuries to his wrist and thigh and watched Dr. Shaw measure with a caliper an angle of declination of 25 degrees from the point of entry on the back to the point of exit on the front of the Governor's chest. (Warren Report, p. 93)
And allow me to again remind you that in their final report, the FPP corrected the obvious misstatement in Dr. Baden's report about a 45-degree downward angle through Connally, and they adjusted the downward angle to 10 degrees. Let's read from the FPP's report -- yet again:
Dr. Baden's report comments on the angle of the trajectory:
Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front downwards at approximately a 10-degree angle for a distance of 12 1/2 inches through the body. (7 HSCA 150)
I again ask you if you have ever bothered to look a diagram of Connally's chest wounds. If so, how can you possibly believe that the downward angle from the entry wound to the exit wound was 45 degrees? How?
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 16, 2026, 03:39:08 PM ---I will start you off locating the shooter. For every 1 foot horizontal, you go 1 foot vertical. Maybe math is not your thing. If the shooter was 200 feet away, he would also be 200 feet off the ground. Should be easy to locate that building in Dealey Plaza or maybe not. Explain the different medical wounds JBC would have suffered with a direct nose on bullet instead of one that was in the process of yawing after having passed through JFK. Hint: the rib damage would be way different.
--- End quote ---
LOL! This is pure hokum! Math is clearly not your thing, as you've already proved with your fantasy of a 45-degree downward angle through Connally.
Umm, no, if a shooter is 200 feet away, that does not mean he is also 200 feet off the ground. How in the world can you think this? Let's try this: The sixth-floor gunman was 265 feet from the limousine at Z313, but of course the gunman was not 265 feet off the ground, right? Right? He was 60 feet off the ground, as you should know.
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 16, 2026, 03:39:08 PM ---Explain the different medical wounds JBC would have suffered with a direct nose on bullet instead of one that was in the process of yawing after having passed through JFK. Hint: the rib damage would be way different.
--- End quote ---
Hint: You have no clue what you are talking about. The Connally back-wound bullet was not yawing when it hit and did not yaw when it transited his chest. The back wound was only 1.5 cm wide, the same width as JFK's rear entry wound. A 1.5-cm-wide entry wound indicates the bullet struck at a modest horizontal angle or that the target was turned somewhat, just as with the head wound. Moreover, as Dr. Shaw noted, the bullet was not yawing through the chest but created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149) that "stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
I have pointed out these facts at least 10 times in the last six months, but you guys simply ignore them and keep repeating your yawing-bullet delusion. How about if you explain how a yawing bullet could have created a small tunneling wound that smashed 4 inches of rib bone while doing minimal damage to the surrounding muscles? Hey?
While you're at it, how about if you explain the fact that every single SBT wound-ballistics has contradicted the SBT? How about if you explain the fact that the most sophisticated, data-intensive SBT trajectory analysis ever done, and done by a respected forensic engineering firm no less, determined that the SBT is impossible?
--- Quote from: Jack Nessan on September 16, 2026, 03:39:08 PM ---C'mon you can do it. Your MTG weaver of tall tales.
--- End quote ---
Let me give you a short lesson in basic logic: If numerous facts clearly seem to prove that your theory is impossible, you can't dodge those facts by insisting that you will not explain them until someone provides you with an alternative theory that you find acceptable. That's not how it works. If you were to try that stunt in a graded and judged college debate, you would get demolished and flunked -- and probably kicked off the debate team for remedial tutoring.
You and other SBT true believers can't even get a bullet out of JFK's throat in the first place without ignoring a mountain of facts: the fact that the back wound was below the throat wound, the fact that the bullet would have transited the neck at an upward angle, the fact that the trajectory through the neck cannot be aligned with the sixth-floor window unless you assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet hit, the fact that the throat wound had all the textbook characteristics of an entry wound, the fact that the only theory you can offer to explain the throat wound's entry-like appearance is the impossible shored-wound theory, the fact that all four of the Parkland medical staff who saw the throat wound before the clothing was cut off and who commented on the wound's location said the wound was above the collar, the fact that your only answer to the hard physical evidence of the bullet holes in the rear of JFK's coat and shirt is the ridiculous and debunked bunched-clothing explanation, the fact that JFK's tie concretely proves that no bullet exited the throat, the fact that the shirt slits were below the collar band and had no fabric missing from them, the fact that we now know that Humes knew about the throat wound at least an hour before the exam phase of the autopsy was completed, the fact that we now know that at the autopsy the autopsy pathologists established for an absolute and observable fact that the back wound had no exit point, the fact that ARRB and other recorded interviews with autopsy witnesses have revealed that the men standing around the autopsy table could see that the back wound had no exit point because they could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity (even after all the chest organs had been removed), and the fact that the transcript of the WC's 1/27/64 executive session confirms that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version