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? 

[Mike Orr]

The sooner we can conclude that the Single Bullet Theory ( CE 399 )in no way shape or form could have possibly taken place on Nov. 22 , 1963 then we can start making our way through the JFK Assassination and concentrate on what actually took place that day .  Theories should be sorted out as to make this case in a factual matter so we can come to the realization as to what the facts are so we can move on .

[Tim Nickerson]

The sooner we can conclude that the Single Bullet Theory ( CE 399 )in no way shape or form could have possibly taken place on Nov. 22 , 1963 then we can start making our way through the JFK Assassination and concentrate on what actually took place that day .  Theories should be sorted out as to make this case in a factual matter so we can come to the realization as to what the facts are so we can move on .

What happened to the bullet that exited Kennedy's throat? It was travelling at a downward angle of 17.25 degrees. Where did it go?

Mr. Frazier, for that purpose can you identify what is depicted in a photograph heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 351?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; this is a photograph of the very small pattern of cracks in the windshield which was on the Presidential limousine at the time I examined it, and which I also later examined in the FBI laboratory.
.....
Mr. SPECTER - Will you then move to the molding around the windshield and state what, if anything, you found there?
Mr. FRAZIER - On the strip of chrome which goes across the top of the- windshield and again on the passenger side of the windshield or the inside surface, I found a dent in the chrome which had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.
Mr. SPECTER - Was there one dent or more than one dent or what?
Mr. FRAZIER - One dent.
........
Mr. SPECTER - Did your examination of the President's limousine disclose any other holes or markings which could have conceivably been caused by a bullet striking the automobile or any part of the automobile?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.

[John Corbett]

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.

You misspelled "disinformation". I'm sure that was just a typo.

I've already refuted this, several times.

You misspelled "disputed".

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.

JBC was not turned enough to create such an elongated wound. Had he been turned as much as you suggest, the bullet would not have exited from under his right nipple. It would have exited more to the left side of his torso.

It has been shown experimentally that a Carcano bullet will yaw when exiting soft tissue. JBC was in direct line with the shooter and the exit wound in JFK's throat which means it would have been almost impossible for that bullet to have missed hitting him in the back. You seem to want to believe a couple of silly factoids.

1. CE399 did not hit either man.
2. JFK was hit by a different bullet than the one that hit JBC.

If the above are true, how did CE399 end up at Parkland Hospital? What happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back? What happened to the bullet that struck JBC in the back?

I'm wondering if you will play dodgeball with the above questions or resort to your favorite fallback reply of "I already answered that".

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.

How narrow?

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.

That is a lie. The fact that you reject my answers doesn't mean they haven't been given.

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.

Even 1.5cm is more than double the diameter of the 6.5mm bullets Oswald fired which means the bullet had yawed before striking JBC.

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." 

That's why I asked you earlier, "How small?". [/quote]

The Haags are downright quacks. [/quote]

Just because their expert opinions don't support your kooky beliefs doesn't make them 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.

If there were two entry wounds and no exit wounds, there would have been two bullets in the body. There were none. I realize we are getting into single digit arithmetic here and you have struggled with that in the past, but those are the facts.

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:

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:

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.

Even using your figure of a 1.5cm entry wound, that is more than double the diameter of the bullet which is not "moderately elongated".

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 always leave out the part where they say in an anatomical position. If I had some crayons handy I would draw a picture for you but since I don't, I will try to dumb it down in words so you can understand, although I'm not sure you will be able to understand.

Had the bullet been traveling level and JFK's back been perfectly vertical, it would have created a perpendicular entry wound. That of course, wasn't the case. No one's upper back is perfectly vertical. There is a slope to it. Someone hunching over slightly as profile views of JFK during the motorcade suggest, that would increase the slope in relation to vertical. That means if the bullet was traveling at a downward angle of 20 degrees in relation to horizontal and JFK's back was sloped at 110 degrees in relation to vertical, the bullet would still enter at a 90 degree angle. However the natural slope of JFK's back was more than 110 degrees in relation to horizontal, he was hunched over slightly more than that, and the slope of Elm St. added 3 more degrees to the lean of his upper back, would have resulted in a surface more than 110 degrees, probably in the neighborhood of 120-130 degrees from horizontal. A bullet traveling at a downward angle of 20 degrees would enter his back at an obtuse angle (that means greater than 90 degrees), roughly 100-110 degrees which would be upward from the vertical position but still downward from a horizontal perspective.

Let me apologize for not having dumbed this down enough for you to comprehend. I tried to explain it in grammar school terms but I ended up using terms more appropriate for high school level geometry, so I probably lost you about halfway through. My bad.

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.

You've already demonstrated you have a poor grasp of basic geometry. The back wound was several inches above the throat exit wound.

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)

Go back and reread what I posted a few paragraphs earlier and if you still don't understand, find a fifth grader to explain to you what I meant. Maybe he can explain to you what the phrase "in relation to the body" means.

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)

In order for the bullet to enter and travel through the body at a true upward angle, it would have to have been fired from a point lower than the entry wound in the back. Do you think the bullet was fired from street level?

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.

It is showing the path of the bullet through a vertical body. That was not JFK's position at the time of the shot.

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.

Go back and look at the autopsy photos of the entry wound in the back and the left profile view of JFK lying on the autopsy table. Comparing the entry wound position in relation to the creases in JFK's neck to the tracheostomy incision in the profile view, it is easy to see with the naked eye the back wound was significantly higher than the exit wound.

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.

You seem to still operate under the silly belief that the upper surface of a person's back is vertical. It is not and that fact is why a bullet traveling downward can enter that surface at an obtuse angle to the surface of the back.

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.

Really? That's the corner you've painted yourself into? Oswald hit JFK with a bank shot? I saw Adam Cartwright do that once on an episode of Bonanza. That was probably before the JFKA so maybe that's where Oswald got the idea.

You have provided a lot of comic relief in the roughly 7 months I have participated on this forum but you really outdid yourself with this one. Thank you for that.

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

Why do you suppose that fragment didn't show up in the x-rays? Was your frontal throat entrance wound also from a bank shot? Why didn't that one show up in the x-rays?

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.

The FPP's version of the SBT is perfectly compatible with the WCR, your simpleton understanding not withstanding.

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.

Only a simpleton would conclude that.

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 they confused you with the term "anatomical position".

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."

No they could see it too. Their explanation was just a bit too complicated for you to comprehend.

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 don't recall explaining it in those terms. What I did say was that both the original autopsy conclusion and the FPP conclusion were compatible with the finding that Oswald fired the shots. The fact that the two had a slight disagreement on the precise location of the entry doesn't preclude the shot having been fired from the sniper's nest by Oswald.

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.

Upward in relation to the surface of JFK's back but still downward from horizontal. And you say I don't know enough about geometry. That's comical.

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?

I don't know precisely how they positioned JFK at the moment of impact but even with JFK sitting perfectly upright, the surface of his upper back would have been tilted away from the shooter and to that we have to add in the 3 degrees downward slope of Elm St.