The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory
Jack Nessan:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 18, 2026, 01:55:30 PM ---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?!
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?
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.
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?
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.
--- 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?!
Yes, no problem. Explain the location of the shooter and how that is even possible.
---------------------------------------
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:
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)
You cannot read this, is that the problem. It looks like you personally edited the quote for your pathetic theory. You would really do that?
(Volume VII, Medical and Firearms Evidence, Addendum G — Baden’s 9/6/78 memorandum). This is the only place where the HSCA publishes the actual numeric angles:
“Positioning the Governor while erect in the anatomic posture shows the missile track to proceed from back to front, downward at approximately a 45° angle to the horizontal and slightly medially at approximately a 10° angle for a distance of 12½ inches through the body.”
— HSCA Volume VII, Addendum G, Report of the Physical Examination of Governor John Connally, Memorandum by Michael I. Baden, M.D., 9/6/78
I am sure you do not like the reality of Baden's measurement.
It makes your whole show look silly.
----------------------------------
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)
You don't grasp what is wrong with placing Dr Shaw in the same room with Gov Connally when they testified weeks apart from each other. Connally did not strip down for the WC nor do you use a caliper to measure angle. What would they possible learn from having him take his shirt off. Do you ever think for yourself?
-------------------------------------------
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.
Congratulations. Just when I think you have maxed out the idiot meter you come up with this. Life is too short to correct this mess. You just keep believing it. It shows how harmless this whole nonsensical theory really is. In fact, can you expound on it and make it even better?
If you cannot explain how a separate shot impacts the SBT, especially one that is at 45 degree angle, you have a completely useless theory and in conclusion, you have a completely useless theory.
Angles are rise to run. A 45 degree angle is 1 to 1. See if that helps explain how a shot from 200 feet away would have to have been taken from a height of 200 feet if it traveled at a 45 degree angle.
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: John Corbett on September 18, 2026, 01:29:25 PM ---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.
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.
--- End quote ---
How can you tell by looking at my photo that Specter is demonstrating the right to left trajectory? I can't. I suspect that John Mytton would be able to tell.
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
Can you link to some photos in which the jacket can be seen to not be lifted up at all?
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
The Croft photo was taken on Elm street, at about the same time as Zapruder frame 160; 3.44 seconds before the single bullet shot.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
I'm using the bunch jacket argument for two reasons. One, the jacket was bunched up. Two, the holes in the shirt and jacket are 5.5 inches below the tops of collars and the wound itself is about 2.5 inches below the tops of the collars. I don't believe that the curvature of JFK's back was anywhere near enough to make up for that 3 inches
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 18, 2026, 11:48:14 PM ---How can you tell by looking at my photo that Specter is demonstrating the right to left trajectory? I can't. I suspect that John Mytton would be able to tell.
--- End quote ---
Because I can see from that photo the rod is being held above the entry point on the jacket and the other end of the rod is on the entry point on the back of the agent taking JBC's place. That puts the rod above the path of the bullet.
--- Quote ---
Can you link to some photos in which the jacket can be seen to not be lifted up at all?
--- End quote ---
By lifted, do you mean bunched up at the top? The picture I posted earlier shows that quite nicely? I have since learned in another thread that is one of Phil Willis' slide photos.
--- Quote ---
The Croft photo was taken on Elm street, at about the same time as Zapruder frame 160; 3.44 seconds before the single bullet shot.
I'm using the bunch jacket argument for two reasons. One, the jacket was bunched up. Two, the holes in the shirt and jacket are 5.5 inches below the tops of collars and the wound itself is about 2.5 inches below the tops of the collars. I don't believe that the curvature of JFK's back was anywhere near enough to make up for that 3 inches
--- End quote ---
I hadn't looked closely at the background when you first posted the Croft photo but on further inspection, it does appear the west end of the TSBD in the background. Can you sync that photo with a Zapruder frame. I started a thread to get someone to assist me with the Willis photo and there's a good argument it syncs up with Z145. It appears we have two photos taken seconds apart, one showing a bunched jacket and one in which it was not bunched. The difference seems to be the position of JFK's right arm. When he had his hand up by his forehead, the jacket is not bunched. The Croft photo seems to be with his arm down. Just before the bullet struck, his arm had been up waving to the crowd but he was lowering it when he disappeared behind the sign. So with his arm part way down when JFK was struck, was the jacket bunched or not? Who knows? I think the fact the top of the jacket was not vertical but tilted forward had more to do with reducing the vertical separation between the top of the jacket and the entry point. The entry point would not have been 5 1/2 inches below the top of the jacket whether the jacket was bunched or not.
John Mytton:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 18, 2026, 11:48:14 PM ---
The Croft photo was taken on Elm street, at about the same time as Zapruder frame 160; 3.44 seconds before the single bullet shot.
--- End quote ---
Thumb1:
Hi Tim.
JohnM
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: John Mytton on September 19, 2026, 02:34:01 AM --- Thumb1:
Hi Tim.
JohnM
--- End quote ---
Hi John.
Thanks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version