Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory

[Tim Nickerson]

You again blunder over information that has been known for decades. First off, you realize that the term "several" can refer to as many as nine or 10, right? You can Google it.

If a majority of the FPP disagreed with the upward-trajectory finding, why does the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12) show the bullet traveling upward through the neck and show JFK leaning substantially forward? Why did Dr. Baden, the FPP chairman, demonstrate an upward trajectory through the neck with a wooden pointer in his filmed interview for NOVA's 1988 JFKA documentary, and why did Baden then lean markedly forward, still holding the pointer, to show how an upward trajectory through the neck could line up with the sixth-floor window? And, why does 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:

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)

Of course, one major problem is that no photo or frame shows JFK leaning as far forward as the FPP and Baden had to assume he was.

When there were no dissenting views, the report says "the panel". When there were dissenting views but still a majority view, the report says "a majority of the panel". "Several members of the panel" is several members, not the panel as a whole. Not even a majority. Baden was one of the several. He used his influence to have those drawings published in the report as "possible trajectories through the neck". In his later interviews in which he leans markedly forward, Baden was representing his view and that of two or three others of the panel.

On edit: The report, in at least one entry, does say "Most panel members".

Uh, yes, I already pointed this out. You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram (7 HSCA 100, Figure 12). Here's a link to it:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:HSCA-JFK-neck2-6-43.jpg

Notice that the diagram shows the bullet entering slightly below the throat wound. Why do you suppose that not a single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges the FPP's location for the back wound and the FPP's depiction of an upward trajectory through the neck? Humm? Why do you suppose that is?   

You already pointed what out? What does "superior" mean? T1 was not below the throat wound.



No single pro-SBT diagram acknowledges that the bullet made an upward trajectory through the neck because not even the "several members of the FPP" believed that the bullet made an upward path through the neck. I'm not aware of a single maker of a Pro-SBT diagram who agreed, or agrees, with the 11 degree angle belief of those several members of the HSCA FPP.

The FPP placed the "back wound" about 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. That skin fold is also visible in the left lateral view. The wound in the throat is also visible in that left lateral view. The Clark Panel measured the wound in the throat to be 9 cm below that fold in the skin of the neck.

What?! The drawing was made under Humes's direction and instruction. The medical artist, Harold Rydberg, only drew what Humes told him to draw; Humes presented the drawing to the WC as an accurate depiction of the SBT's trajectory through the neck; and the WC cited the drawing three times in the Warren Report and published it as an exhibit. The drawing, CE 385, shows the back wound above the throat wound and has the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

Humes was not standing over Rydberg's shoulder as Rydberg made his drawings. He was not responsible for how the drawings turned out.

And every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration, from Lattimer's diagrams to Myers' fraudulent animation, erroneously has the mythical magic bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck. 

T1 is not in the "low neck." The neck ends at C7. The "C" stands for "cervical." The "T" stands for "thoracic." The FPP correctly referred to the T1 location as being "in the back area" and noted it was "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in CE 385 (1 HSCA 256).

It is just incredible that you guys still refuse to deal with the fact that the only way to make the T1 location and its upward trajectory work for the SBT is to make the demonstrably false assumption that JFK was leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.

Every single pro-SBT trajectory illustration has the single bullet traveling downward through JFK's neck because Humes said that it did in his sworn WC testimony. That same testimony that both Boswell and Finck said that they concurred with in their own sworn WC testimonies.

Low neck is the low neck. Humes testified that the wound was in the low neck.

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.

Both Boswell and Finck concurred with Humes in their own sworn WC testimonies.

JFK's physique gave the impressive that he was hunched forward. Using the Croft photo, Thomas Canning estimated him to be hunched forward between 11 and 18 degrees.

Your denial of obvious reality here is akin to your long-standing refusal to acknowledge the fact that JFK's clothing clearly, self-evidently refutes any notion that the back-wound bullet exited the throat. Objective people can read your grasping replies in my threads "JFK's Clothing Refutes the Single-Bullet Theory" and "JFK's Throat Wound Was an Entrance Wound: Refuting the Shored-Wound Theory" and see that you guys have no tenable, sensible explanation for the clothing evidence.

JFK's jacket can clearly be seen to be bunched up as the motorcade made it's way through Dallas. Considering that the hole in the shirt matches up with the hole in the jacket, we can safely assume that it was bunched up as well. 1 inch of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 2 inches. 1.5 inches of bunch-up raises the material below a little more than 3 inches. That's factoring in the crown.

If you guys were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence, you would have abandoned the SBT way back when we learned (1) that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot, and (2) that the bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat were over 5 inches below the collar.

If you were dealing rationally and credibly with the evidence you would accept that the single bullet theory should be known as the single bullet fact. You would not be denying the evidence. You would accept that the autopsy photos and x-Rays are genuine and unaltered. You would accept that the entry wound on Kennedy was between 5 and 6 cm below a transverse fold in the skin on the back of the neck.

[Tim Nickerson]

You realize that T1 was below the throat wound, right? Right? Look at the FPP's SBT diagram

Here's an FPP drawing that helps to illustrate my point that T1 was above the throat wound:

[Michael T. Griffith]

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.

This thread is a great example of the fact that WC apologists have largely ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location (slightly below the throat wound or, at the most, level with it) and the bullet's upward trajectory. In their various and conflicting SBT diagrams/animations, WC defenders always (1) have JFK sitting upright with his head held upright or tilted only slightly forward, (2) have the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

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)

Spitz was either unaware that these facts destroyed the SBT or he dismissed as irrelevant all the photos and footage taken of JFK during the SBT's timeframe. Ditto for Dr. Baden when he demonstrated in the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary that the alleged magic bullet's trajectory would have been upward through the neck and that this trajectory could only align with the sixth-floor window if JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.   

[Jack Nessan]

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.

This thread is a great example of the fact that WC apologists have largely ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location (slightly below the throat wound or, at the most, level with it) and the bullet's upward trajectory. In their various and conflicting SBT diagrams/animations, WC defenders always (1) have JFK sitting upright with his head held upright or tilted only slightly forward, (2) have the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

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)

Spitz was either unaware that these facts destroyed the SBT or he dismissed as irrelevant all the photos and footage taken of JFK during the SBT's timeframe. Ditto for Dr. Baden when he demonstrated in the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary that the alleged magic bullet's trajectory would have been upward through the neck and that this trajectory could only align with the sixth-floor window if JFK had been leaning far forward when the bullet struck.

Same useless crap. 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.

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.

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

[Michael T. Griffith]

Since it is obvious that lone-gunman theorists here are simply not going to admit that the HSCA FPP's SBT actually destroys the SBT, let us take a moment to revisit the fact that there were too many bullet fragments deposited in Connally's body to have come from CE 399, the SBT's alleged bullet.

In his 11/29/63 supplemental x-ray report on Connally's wounds, Dr. Jack Reynolds, Parkland Hospital's chief radiologist and later a professor or radiology at Southwestern Medical School, said the metal fragment in Connally's thigh measured approximately 3.5 mm x 1.3 mm on the AP x-ray and about 2.0 mm x 1.5 mm on the lateral x-ray, so it was definitely somewhat dense and not any kind of a "flake":

There is, however, one density which remains constant on both films and appears to lie beneath the skin of the region of the subcutaneous fat in the medial aspect of the thigh meters posterior to the exterior of the anterior cortex. The shape of this density is irregular but is roughly oval. Precise measurements are difficult but it is estimated that the greatest length in the AP projection is about 3.5 millimeters and the greatest width about 1.3 millimeters.

Measurements of the densities in the lateral projection reveal the greatest length to be about 2 millimeters and the greatest width to be about 1.5 millimeters The long axis of the metallic object is oriented generally along the axis of the femur. ("Supplemental Report Describing in Detail the Appearance and Location of a Small Metallic Density Superimposed on the Soft Tissue Shadows of the Medial Aspect of the Left Thigh of Governor John Connally on Films Dated November 22, 1963," 11/29/63, pp. 1-2)

In his 11/9/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Reynolds said the identifiable opacity in the thigh x-rays "definitely has metal characteristics" and that his 11/29/63 report describing "the location of this fragment" was "correct":

Dr. Reynolds stated that an identifiable opacity exists in the thigh x-rays and that it definitely has metal characteristics. He stated that his 11-29-62 report, describing the location of this fragment as just beneath the skin in the region of the subcutaneous fat, is correct. (7 HSCA 320)

In addition, Dr. Reynolds said there were "at least" four bullet fragments visible in Connally's wrist wound:

After examining the original and the enhanced x-rays, Dr . Reynolds stated that there are at least four fragments of metal identifiable in Gov. Connally's wrist wound (7 HSCA 320)

The wrist fragments and the thigh fragment could not have come from CE 399, given that the bullet was missing less than 4 grains of its substance. Russell Kent:
 
Dr. Gregory, Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, testified that he removed two fragments (but left other small fragments in the wound). These became Warren Commission Exhibit (CE) 842 below in Figure 32. There is no explanation of how the two fragments became four.

On 29th November 1963, Parkland Memorial Hospital sent Connally’s x-rays to the FBI. The dimensions of the fragment left in his thigh, as shown on one of the x-rays, were 3.5 mm by 1.3 mm.     

These are quite large fragments. It is reasonable to doubt that these fragments came from CE 399. (JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, pp. 210-211).

As I've pointed out previously, before they knew what they were supposed to say, before the SBT emerged as the explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, even Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck said that Dr. Gregory's 11/22/63 operative report described too many bullet fragments to have from CE 399 (2 H 374-375; 2 H 382).

[John Corbett]

Since it is obvious that lone-gunman theorists here are simply not going to admit that the HSCA FPP's SBT actually destroys the SBT, let us take a moment to revisit the fact that there were too many bullet fragments deposited in Connally's body to have come from CE 399, the SBT's alleged bullet.

In his 11/29/63 supplemental x-ray report on Connally's wounds, Dr. Jack Reynolds, Parkland Hospital's chief radiologist and later a professor or radiology at Southwestern Medical School, said the metal fragment in Connally's thigh measured approximately 3.5 mm x 1.3 mm on the AP x-ray and about 2.0 mm x 1.5 mm on the lateral x-ray, so it was definitely somewhat dense and not any kind of a "flake":

There is, however, one density which remains constant on both films and appears to lie beneath the skin of the region of the subcutaneous fat in the medial aspect of the thigh meters posterior to the exterior of the anterior cortex. The shape of this density is irregular but is roughly oval. Precise measurements are difficult but it is estimated that the greatest length in the AP projection is about 3.5 millimeters and the greatest width about 1.3 millimeters.

Measurements of the densities in the lateral projection reveal the greatest length to be about 2 millimeters and the greatest width to be about 1.5 millimeters The long axis of the metallic object is oriented generally along the axis of the femur. ("Supplemental Report Describing in Detail the Appearance and Location of a Small Metallic Density Superimposed on the Soft Tissue Shadows of the Medial Aspect of the Left Thigh of Governor John Connally on Films Dated November 22, 1963," 11/29/63, pp. 1-2)

In his 11/9/77 HSCA interview, Dr. Reynolds said the identifiable opacity in the thigh x-rays "definitely has metal characteristics" and that his 11/29/63 report describing "the location of this fragment" was "correct":

Dr. Reynolds stated that an identifiable opacity exists in the thigh x-rays and that it definitely has metal characteristics. He stated that his 11-29-62 report, describing the location of this fragment as just beneath the skin in the region of the subcutaneous fat, is correct. (7 HSCA 320)

In addition, Dr. Reynolds said there were "at least" four bullet fragments visible in Connally's wrist wound:

After examining the original and the enhanced x-rays, Dr . Reynolds stated that there are at least four fragments of metal identifiable in Gov. Connally's wrist wound (7 HSCA 320)

The wrist fragments and the thigh fragment could not have come from CE 399, given that the bullet was missing less than 4 grains of its substance. Russell Kent:
 
Dr. Gregory, Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, testified that he removed two fragments (but left other small fragments in the wound). These became Warren Commission Exhibit (CE) 842 below in Figure 32. There is no explanation of how the two fragments became four.

On 29th November 1963, Parkland Memorial Hospital sent Connally’s x-rays to the FBI. The dimensions of the fragment left in his thigh, as shown on one of the x-rays, were 3.5 mm by 1.3 mm.     

These are quite large fragments. It is reasonable to doubt that these fragments came from CE 399. (JFK Medical Betrayal: Where the Evidence Lies, pp. 210-211).

As I've pointed out previously, before they knew what they were supposed to say, before the SBT emerged as the explanation for JFK and Connally's non-fatal wounds, even Dr. Humes and Dr. Finck said that Dr. Gregory's 11/22/63 operative report described too many bullet fragments to have from CE 399 (2 H 374-375; 2 H 382).

This is why amateurs such as yourself should not try to analyze evidence that calls for expertise. You compare dimensions of the flakes to the weight of CE399. Talk about apples and oranges. The surgeon who removed the flakes from JBC's wrist estimated they had the weight of a postage stamp.

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

This thread is a great example of the fact that WC apologists have largely ignored the HSCA FPP's findings about the back wound's location (slightly below the throat wound or, at the most, level with it) and the bullet's upward trajectory. In their various and conflicting SBT diagrams/animations, WC defenders always (1) have JFK sitting upright with his head held upright or tilted only slightly forward, (2) have the bullet traveling downward through the neck.

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)

Spitz was either unaware that these facts destroyed the SBT or he dismissed as irrelevant all the photos and footage taken of JFK during the SBT's timeframe. Ditto for Dr. Baden when he demonstrated in the 1988 NOVA JFKA documentary that the alleged magic bullet's trajectory would have been upward through the neck and that this trajectory could only align with the sixth-floor window if JFK had been leaning markedly forward when the bullet struck.

The Clark Panel measured the entry wound to be 5.5 cm below that transverse fold in the skin of the neck. The HSCA's FPP measured it to be 6 cm below the skin fold. Going but what you see in that photo above, place a mark on the back in the lateral view below at the level that you believe that the wound was at. The yellow line represents my own determination of the approximate wound entry level and subsequent downward path of the bullet to the throat wound. The photo is not a diagram or an animation. It's an actual photograph of the body of Kennedy.