The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate
Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Zeon Mason on September 23, 2026, 08:10:00 PM ---
Sorry, but the words of Hume and his drawings do not match the autopsy photo. Just no way that hole seen in the autopsy photo is above the shoulder line and as close to the folds of the neck as depicted in the drawing. I don’t give this guy much credibility if he burned his notes. He was selected over other more qualified and experienced people and that in itself is suspicious.
--- End quote ---
Humes never made any drawings. He was going by memory when giving instructions to Rydberg. The wound placement is too high in the drawing but the wound was in the low neck. He copied his bloodied notes word for word before he burned them.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 23, 2026, 11:41:33 PM ---Humes never made any drawings. He was going by memory when giving instructions to Rydberg.
--- End quote ---
This sounds a bit childish. Humes directly supervised Rydberg's drawing point-by-point, then he reviewed it and said it represented what he saw, and then he presented to the WC as an accurate depiction of the back wound's location.
Humes could have used his autopsy notes and Boswell's autopsy face sheet, but he chose not to do so because he was determined to misrepresent the wound's location as being above the throat wound so he could portray a mythical downward trajectory through the neck.
--- Quote from: Tim Nickerson on September 23, 2026, 11:41:33 PM ---The wound placement is too high in the drawing but the wound was in the low neck.
--- End quote ---
No, it most certainly was not in the "low neck." The autopsy photo alone refutes this myth.
Even Google AI knows that T1 is not in the neck:
The "T" stands for Thoracic: This means T1 is the first vertebra of the thoracic spine (the upper and middle back section).
Even partially acknowledging the autopsy photo of the back wound and mislocating the wound at C7 does not work, because C7 would have been only very slightly above the throat wound, if not level with it, whereas the downward angle from the sixth-floor window to JFK would have been between 20 and 21.5 degrees. Humes knew this, and this is why he purposely falsified the back wound's location in CE 385, and this is why the WC assumed the back wound was in the neck and that it was visibly above the throat wound.
Of course, you continue to cling to the absurd bunched-clothing theory to explain away the fact that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were 5 inches below the collar, even though Croft 3 and Willis 5 plainly refute the theory, not to mention the severely far-fetched notion that the shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat.
BTW, do you still stand by your bizarre claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray are the same object, even though both are plainly visible on the x-ray and look nothing like each other?
Tim Nickerson:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 24, 2026, 03:51:58 PM ---
No, it most certainly was not in the "low neck." The autopsy photo alone refutes this myth.
Even Google AI knows that T1 is not in the neck:
The "T" stands for Thoracic: This means T1 is the first vertebra of the thoracic spine (the upper and middle back section).
--- End quote ---
"This wound is located approximately at the point where the bullet would be expected to exit, given the nature of the entrance wound in the upper right back and the damage to the transverse process of the lower cervical and first thoracic vertebras, which are situated on a line between the entrance and exit points."- HSCA Volume VII, page 175
That may be why they said this:
"the entrance perforation is medial to the scapula and superior to the ribs." - HSCA Volume VII, page 87
T1 being the uppermost vertebra for the ribs.
And there's this from the HSCA photographic analysis panel:
168. "the evidence indicates that the bullet passed near, but did not strike, the right lateral processes of the seventh cervical and first thoracic vertebrae (nor any other bony matter) (59)"- HSCA Volume VI, page 56
(59) sources paragraphs 272-289 of the FPP report.
--- Quote ---Even partially acknowledging the autopsy photo of the back wound and mislocating the wound at C7 does not work, because C7 would have been only very slightly above the throat wound, if not level with it, whereas the downward angle from the sixth-floor window to JFK would have been between 20 and 21.5 degrees. Humes knew this, and this is why he purposely falsified the back wound's location in CE 385, and this is why the WC assumed the back wound was in the neck and that it was visibly above the throat wound.
--- End quote ---
When factoring in the 3 degree slope of the street, the angle through Kennedy was about 17.25 degrees.
This X-Ray below was not of someone with a hunchback physique like that of Kennedy's.
And using this HSCA drawing, we can see that T1 is above the throat wound as well.
--- Quote ---Of course, you continue to cling to the absurd bunched-clothing theory to explain away the fact that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were 5 inches below the collar, even though Croft 3 and Willis 5 plainly refute the theory, not to mention the severely far-fetched notion that the shirt could have bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---BTW, do you still stand by your bizarre claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP skull x-ray are the same object, even though both are plainly visible on the x-ray and look nothing like each other?
--- End quote ---
My claim is not bizarre. It is a factual claim that you have thus far been unable to address in a cogent and honest manner. You will no doubt continue to avoid addressing the bullet fragment that is imbedded in the frontal skull bone.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5194.msg186604.html#msg186604
Michael T. Griffith:
Not surprisingly, WC apologists continue to assume their alleged magic bullet was tumbling through Connally's chest after supposedly hitting his back while traveling sideways or while markedly tumbling.
In one of the HSCA's wound-ballistics test, two types of bullets were fired into 12-inch blocks of ballistics gelatin: a 6.5 mm FMJ missile (Oswald's alleged ammo), a .30 caliber FMJ bullet. and a .223 M-16/AR-15 frangible bullet. Side-view photos showed that the 6.5 mm and .30 caliber FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, contradicting the theory that the Connally chest bullet was yawing when it passed through the governor's torso (see JFK Exhibit F-116 in 1 HSCA 392).
Dr. Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, noted that the bullet created a small tunneling wound and shattered the rib while doing only minor damage to the muscles beside it. He reported that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
In addition, the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was only 1.5 x 0.8 cm rules out a sideways-striking bullet, or even a markedly tumbling bullet. The wound's dimensions simply show that Connally was turning when the bullet struck, just as he said he was. Stewart Fillmore, a retired FBI agent who has conducted SBT wound-ballistics tests, has noted this point in another thread in this forum:
--- Quote ---However, Connally said consistently until the day he died that he was turning as he was hit. I know from many firearms training sessions in the FBI using turning targets that a stable bullet striking a rotating target will leave an elongated entry. So I did tests on the range shooting into the Connally target while it was rotated from its right to left. The results were an elongated entry approximately 1.5 cm wide. (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5189.msg185514.html#msg185514)
--- End quote ---
I would point out that WC apologists here still have not explained how a bullet striking at T1, i.e., slightly below the throat wound and entering at an upward angle, could have traveled downward through the neck unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
The OP of this thread includes a link to a page that shows Dr. Baden demonstrating for the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary just how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the T1 trajectory align with the sixth-floor window. Baden even demonstrated the bullet's upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer stick. The problem, of course, is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning markedly forward during the timeframes of the various versions of the SBT.
You see, for years WC apologists have trumpeted the fact that the HSCA FPP majority endorsed the SBT. They've endlessly pointed out that the majority consisted of "eight eminent forensic pathologists" (vs. only one dissenter, Dr. Wecht) and that these experts "studied the medical evidence for two years."
But, as we see from their replies in this thread, WC apologists have been trumpeting the FPP's SBT endorsement without realizing that the FPP's SBT destroys the SBT. They obviously did not realize (or perhaps in some cases hoped nobody knew) that the FPP moved the back wound at least 2.5 inches downward from where Humes fraudulently placed it in CE 385, that the FPP acknowledged that the back wound was below the throat wound, that the FPP acknowledged that the bullet hit the back at an upward angle, and that the FPP acknowledged that the only way to make the trajectory align with the sixth-floor window is to assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
John Corbett:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on Yesterday at 12:38:32 PM ---Not surprisingly, WC apologists continue to assume their alleged magic bullet was tumbling through Connally's chest after supposedly hitting his back while traveling sideways or while markedly tumbling.
--- End quote ---
A perfectly logical observation given that it has been demonstrated experimentally that a Carcano bullet will predictably yaw after exiting a block of ballistic gel and the entry wound on JBC's back was elongated.
--- Quote ---
In one of the HSCA's wound-ballistics test, two types of bullets were fired into 12-inch blocks of ballistics gelatin: a 6.5 mm FMJ missile (Oswald's alleged ammo), a .30 caliber FMJ bullet. and a .223 M-16/AR-15 frangible bullet. Side-view photos showed that the 6.5 mm and .30 caliber FMJ bullets punched straight, relatively narrow channels through the gelatin, contradicting the theory that the Connally chest bullet was yawing when it passed through the governor's torso (see JFK Exhibit F-116 in 1 HSCA 392).
--- End quote ---
As usual, you address the wrong question. The question isn't whether the bullet would have yawed while passing through JFK's neck. The question is what it will do upon exiting. The Haag team demonstrated that the bullet would predictably yaw when exiting. The bullet would have yawed after exiting JFK's throat and before it entered JBC's back.
--- Quote ---
Dr. Shaw, Connally's chest surgeon, noted that the bullet created a small tunneling wound and shattered the rib while doing only minor damage to the muscles beside it. He reported that the bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7 HSCA 149), and he noted "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it" (4 H 116).
In addition, the fact that the entry wound in Connally's back was only 1.5 x 0.8 cm rules out a sideways-striking bullet, or even a markedly tumbling bullet. The wound's dimensions simply show that Connally was turning when the bullet struck, just as he said he was. Stewart Fillmore, a retired FBI agent who has conducted SBT wound-ballistics tests, has noted this point in another thread in this forum:
--- End quote ---
Nobody has claimed the bullet was perfectly perpendicular to JBC's back when it made its entry. The bullet would make an elongated wound even if it had not rotated 90 degrees before entering JBC''s back. Once more, MTG's poor analytical skills rear their ugly head.
--- Quote ---
I would point out that WC apologists here still have not explained how a bullet striking at T1, i.e., slightly below the throat wound and entering at an upward angle, could have traveled downward through the neck unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
--- End quote ---
As has been explained to you numerous times, the bullet did not enter JFK's back on an upward angle. That would have required a shot fired from below the entry wound, which is ludicrous. The bullet entered JFK's sloping upper back below perpendicular to the surface of his back but still on a downward trajectory. It's a simple concept which is why it is puzzling that you have so much trouble grasping it.
--- Quote ---
The OP of this thread includes a link to a page that shows Dr. Baden demonstrating for the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary just how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the T1 trajectory align with the sixth-floor window. Baden even demonstrated the bullet's upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer stick. The problem, of course, is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning markedly forward during the timeframes of the various versions of the SBT.
--- End quote ---
It wasn't the lean of JFK's torso that produced the angle of entry, it was the slope of his back which created an obtuse angle to the flight of the bullet.
--- Quote ---
You see, for years WC apologists have trumpeted the fact that the HSCA FPP majority endorsed the SBT. They've endlessly pointed out that the majority consisted of "eight eminent forensic pathologists" (vs. only one dissenter, Dr. Wecht) and that these experts "studied the medical evidence for two years."
But, as we see from their replies in this thread, WC apologists have been trumpeting the FPP's SBT endorsement without realizing that the FPP's SBT destroys the SBT.
--- End quote ---
That's an illogical assessment.
--- Quote ---
They obviously did not realize (or perhaps in some cases hoped nobody knew) that the FPP moved the back wound at least 2.5 inches downward from where Humes fraudulently placed it in CE 385, that the FPP acknowledged that the back wound was below the throat wound, that the FPP acknowledged that the bullet hit the back at an upward angle, and that the FPP acknowledged that the only way to make the trajectory align with the sixth-floor window is to assume JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.
--- End quote ---
We have a photo of the back wound and comparing that photo to the profile view of JFK on the autopsy table, it is quite easy to see with the naked eye that the entry wound on JFK's back is well above the exit wound in JFK's throat. That's without taking into account the 3 degree slope of Elm St.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version