Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

[John Corbett]

The rod does not touch the chalk mark in the right side view. It is off to the right of it. It makes no sense at all to me to raise the rod above the level of the chalk mark in order to get the correct lateral path.

The rod is not going to touch the chalk mark in any view unless you want to skewer the agent representing JFK. I don't know why you have a problem with what Specter did.

[Tim Nickerson]

The rod is not going to touch the chalk mark in any view unless you want to skewer the agent representing JFK. I don't know why you have a problem with what Specter did.

The rod being above the chalk mark in the left view makes no sense to me. It does not fit with the sworn testimony of Shaneyfelt. It make no sense to raise it above the chalk mark in order to represent the correct lateral angle of the path of the bullet through Kennedy. That's why I asked John Mytton if it could be a photographic perspective issue that we're dealing with here.

[Zeon Mason]

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.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony?
Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified?
Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously identified as a Commission Exhibit?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes; I am.
Mr. SPECTER - All the facts set forth therein are correct in accordance with your analysis and evaluation of the situation?
Commander BOSWELL - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And specifically, as to the points of entry and points of exit which have been testified to by Doctor Humes, do his views express yours as well?
Commander BOSWELL - They do, yes.
==============

Mr. SPECTER - Were you present here today and did you hear the entire testimony of Doctor Humes?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And do you concur in Dr. Humes' statements and opinions regarding the point of entry C, point of exit D, and general angle on the flight of the missile?
Colonel FINCK - I certainly do.
==========

"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.
================

The midpoint is estimated to be 13.5 centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck, as positioned within the photograph, 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease and 5 cm below the upper shoulder margin. - HSCA Volume VII, page 85
------

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck."- Clark Panel



===========

"back in the neck...just above C7". - Paul O'Connor, HSCA interview

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.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

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]

Humes never made any drawings. He was going by memory when giving instructions to Rydberg.

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.

The wound placement is too high in the drawing but the wound was in the low neck.

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]

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).

"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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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)

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.