Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

[John Corbett]

The consensus of witnesses was that there were three shots. One group of witnesses said the three shots sounded like they came from the GK and another group said is sounded like the three shots came from the TSBD. Presumably, both groups heard the same three shots and disagreed as to the source of the gunfire. Several witnesses saw a gunman in the 6th floor southeast corner window and son-of-a-gun, three spent shells were found at that window. There was another small group of witnesses who said the shots came from the 6th floor sniper's nest. That was the three employees right below the sniper's nest when the shots were fired. They heard three shots and because they were in such close proximity to the shooter, it's hard to believe they would have got the shooting location wrong. Not only did they hear the three shots, they heard the rifle being cycled between each shot and heard the ejected shells hitting the floor. The shots even shook dust down upon them. Hard to believe those three witnesses got the location of the shots wrong. Of all the earwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, they were in the best position to know the number and location of the shots.

[Tim Nickerson]

I've already refuted this, several times. Again, Connally's back wound was no more "elongated" than JFK's rear head entry wound. The moderate degree of elongation was due to the fact that Connally was turning when the bullet hit him.

The autopsy report itself doesn't mention the dimensions of the hole in the skull. It gives the dimensions of the laceration in the scalp. A tear. You cannot make any real determination regarding bullet size or orientation from a laceration. If the skull hole was similar, that still wouldn't tell you much because of the keyhole effect that bullets have when striking skull bone.

Again, the likes of Posner, Myers, Lattimer, and the Haags have falsely claimed the wound was 3.0 cm wide,

That operative report takes precedence over Dr Shaw's recollection made 5 months later. Not only did he reduce the length of the wound by half, he also got the orientation of the wound wrong. The long axis was horizontal, not vertical. Dr Baden measured the scar on Connally's back to be 1.125 inches long and up to 0.375 inch wide centrally.

Larry Sturdivan noted during his HSCA testimony that, even at the revised dimensions given by Dr Shaw, the wound was one made by a bullet that was yawed upon entry.

[Michael T. Griffith]

Another surreal reply where you simply ignore a mass of information that has been presented and documented to you and then repeat your same old arguments that are refuted by that information.

MG: 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.

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.

I've already refuted this, several times. Again, Connally's back wound was no more "elongated" than JFK's rear head entry wound. The moderate degree of elongation was due to the fact that Connally was turning when the bullet hit him.

Speaking of FMJ bullets passing through ballistics gelatin, I notice you ignored the fact that in the HSCA's wound ballistics test, the FMJ bullet created a narrow and almost straight path through the gelatin. I also noticed you ignored the fact that Dr. Shaw pointed out that the bullet that transited Connally's chest created a remarkably narrow wound path.

You see, I've pointed out these facts to you several times, but you just keep ignoring them and keep repeating your yawing-bullet myth.

In addition, you also keep ignoring the fact that whatever CE 399 hit, it hit while traveling sideways. That's why so many SBT defenders -- including Posner, Lattimer, Myers, and the Haags -- have falsely used the Connally back wound's post-debridement width of 3.0 cm, instead of its actual width of 1.5 cm.

This is also why the quacks the Haags have their SBT bullet hitting Connally's rib sideways. They are probably oblivious to the fact that Dr. Shaw noted that the Connally chest bullet created a "small tunneling wound" and that it "stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it." 

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.

The Haags are downright quacks. And, again, we have a wealth of evidence that the back wound had no exit point and that the throat wound was an entry wound. But you refuse to acknowledge this evidence and just keep assuming that a bullet transited the neck.

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.

LOL! Your reading-comprehension problem is what has once more reared its ugly head. I have never said or implied that the bullet hit Connally's back at a "perfectly perpendicular" angle. Where in the world do you get that bit of fiction? I've said the exact opposite. I mean, seriously, can you read above a grade-school level?

To read your statement above, one would never guess that you were responding to this statement of mine:

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:

And I notice you dishonestly snipped, without notice, Stewart Fillmore's observation about why Connally's back wound was only moderately elongated (1.5 cm). Let's read what you snipped:

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)

Again, the likes of Posner, Myers, Lattimer, and the Haags have falsely claimed the wound was 3.0 cm wide, doubling its actual width, in order to accommodate a sideways-traveling bullet, since CE 399 was 1.2 inches long and a wound 3.0 cm wide is 1.18 inches wide. Ah, but a wound only 1.5 cm wide is only 0.59 inches wide, not nearly wide enough to have been made by a sideways-traveling CE 399. 
 

As has been explained to you numerous times, the bullet did not enter JFK's back on an upward angle.

Umm, you mean "as has been" claimed to me "numerous times," and I've answered that false claim by citing the HSCA FPP's unanimous conclusion that the bullet hit JFK's back at an upward angle and by citing the FPP's SBT diagram.

You keep repeating your false claim and keep ignoring facts that refute it.

I've cited the HSCA FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12), which shows the bullet traveling upward through the neck and shows JFK leaning substantially forward.

I've noted that the FPP's report say that the back wound's abrasion collar is "evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body." Let's read what the FPP said on this issue, yet again:

A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body. (7 HSCA 175)

I've also answered your false claim by citing Dr. Spitz's 1975 finding:

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)

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.

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.

LOL! Not on this planet. Go look at the FPP's SBT trajectory diagram again. As mentioned, it shows the bullet traveling upward through the neck while also showing JFK leaning substantially forward.

Go watch the demonstration of the FPP's SBT trajectory given by Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman: He actually demonstrated the upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary. He leaned markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window.

The problem is that you don't have the integrity or objectivity to admit that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning that far forward, so you prefer to cling to the fiction that the bullet traveled downward through the neck.

Yes, given JFK's posture during the SBT timeframe, a projectile that entered his back at an upward angle would have had to be fired from a point below the entry wound -- yes, such as a large fragment from the bullet that hit the pavement behind the limo. A large fragment from the pavement bullet would have hit the back at an upward angle.

This would also explain why the back wound was so shallow and had no exit point.
 

MG: 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.

That's an illogical assessment.

No, that's a perfectly logical assessment. Your reply is just further proof of how much you guys are in denial about the FPP's version of the SBT.

Just a few months ago, you repeatedly and emphatically cited the HSCA FPP's "unanimous" conclusions and demanded their acceptance. You didn't realize that most of those conclusions, especially their version of the SBT, are fatal to your theory of the shooting.

Now that you're confronted with the fact that the FPP's SBT destroys the SBT, you're ducking and weaving and stumbling all over the place.

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.

Well, now, that's amazing, because the HSCA FPP, to whom you used to frequently appeal as an unquestionable authority, determined that the back wound was slightly below the throat wound, and that the bullet hit the back at an upward angle.

I guess all nine of the FPP's forensic pathologists just couldn't see what you claim is "quite easy to see with the naked eye."

That's without taking into account the 3 degree slope of Elm St.

LOL! Are you the same John Corbett who claimed, just a few months ago, that a difference of 2 inches in the back wound's location and a difference of 4 inches in the rear head wound's location would have no effect on those wounds' trajectories back to the sixth-floor window? Is there another John Corbett who posts in this forum?

I know you don't know enough about geometry to understand this, but the street's downward slope, coupled with the distance from the sixth-floor window at which the bullet would have hit, does nothing to explain the clear physical indications in the back wound that the bullet entered at an upward angle. Even Wecht agreed that the wound's abrasion collar and interior tunneling showed the bullet hit at an upward angle.

This is a rhetorical question, since you'll probably duck it, but why do you suppose that the SBT diagrams of Lattimer, Canning, and Myers all assume that JFK was sitting upright when the bullet hit yet place the back wound in noticeably different locations?