Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

There are numerous photos of Kennedy throughout the motorcade that show his jacket to be bunched up.

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.

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

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: 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.

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?!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

C'mon you can do it. Your MTG weaver of tall tales.

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.

[Jack Nessan]

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.

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.