Nobody is confused here. The reasons this is idiotic are obvious. I cannot vouch for where you are. It must be rocket science to you or how do we explain how lost you always seem to be. Is it too late to edit this out of your fictional book?

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?

None other than your Dr Baden.

Measured by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel
The second authoritative measurement came from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) medical panel in 1978.
This panel included:

Dr. Michael Baden (Chief Medical Examiner, NYC)

Dr. John Coe
Dr. Charles Petty
Dr. Werner Spitz
Dr. Richard Lindenberg
Dr. Robert McMeekin
Dr. George Loquvam

They reviewed Connally’s medical records, X‑rays, surgical notes, and the Warren Commission diagrams.

Their conclusion:

Downward angle inside the torso ≈ 45°

Medial (right‑to‑left) angle ≈ 10

You are posting this nonsense without knowing what you are talking about?

Now that you have been brought current into the real world. Explain where the shooter was located and explain why the medical evidence does not make you look like a fool.

For this kind of stupidity to have a chance of being valid it would be nice of you to produce a bullet responsible for it.

LOL! Oh my goodness! I mean, just holy cow! Neither Dr. Baden nor the HSCA FPP as a whole claimed that the downward angle through Connally's torso was 45 degrees. Perhaps that's why you cited no source for your astonishing claim. The FPP said the bullet track through Connally's torso proceeded downwards from back to front "at approximately a 10-degree angle." I quote from the FPP's report:

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)

Dr. Robert Shaw, the surgeon who operated on Connally's chest, measured the downward angle of the bullet path through Connally's torso as being 25 degrees, as even the Warren Report notes:

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. (p. 93)

Good grief, have you ever looked at a diagram of the entry wound and the exit wound in Connally's torso? How could you possibly think that the bullet traveled at a downward angle of 45 degrees? How?

And why are you talking about Connally's wounds anyway?

When are you going to explain how a bullet that supposedly struck and traveled at an upward angle through JFK's neck could have aligned with a shot fired from the sixth-floor window unless JFK had been leaning markedly forward?

You are doing everything but addressing this simple, straightforward question. You see, we both know that there is no photo or frame that shows JFK leaning so far forward during the SBT's alleged timeframe. So you know that you have no good answer to this question.

There was a reason the WC brazenly misrepresented the wound's location and illustrated a phony downward trajectory through JFK's neck. They knew that was the only way the wound trajectory would have any chance of being plausible for a shot fired from the supposed sniper's nest. Ah, but along came the HSCA FPP and this neck-wound-above-throat-wound myth was blown to pieces.

The focus of this one-page article is Dr. Michael Baden's demonstration in the 1988 NOVA documentary Who Shot President Kennedy? of how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning to make the HSCA FPP's trajectory through the neck align with the sixth-floor window.

"Dr. Baden Refuted the Single-Bullet Theory"

Dr. Wecht mocked the FPP majority's assumption about JFK's forward lean with the joking remark that they were assuming that JFK was bent over tying his shoe laces when the bullet struck. This humorous exaggeration perfectly captures the demonstrably false nature of the FPP's assumption, which Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Of course, Baden had no idea he was driving a huge nail in the SBT's coffin with his demonstration.

Keep in mind that Dr. Humes's wound diagram for the WC (i.e., CE 385) puts the wound at C3 or C4. Humes put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat wound because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" through the neck, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected and debunked.

True to form, SBT believers shrug off this enormous conflict between the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP experts. No matter what, for them the SBT still works, never mind that Humes put the wound at least 2.5 inches higher in CE 385 than where the FPP located it. One WC apologist here, apparently clueless about basic geometry, has even claimed that it makes no difference whatsoever if Humes was wrong and the FPP was right about the wound's location! By golly, the SBT still works! Amazing!

Finally, surely no objective person can look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and conclude that it shows the wound where Humes placed it in CE 385. The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is at least 2.5 inches lower than where CE 385 places it. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes placed it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

Since the autopsy team and the FPP placed the entrance wound in different locations, it would be impossible for the SBT to work with both placements. For the SBT to be valid, it only needs to work with one of those two placements and it does. The discrepancy between the autopsy placement of the wound and the FPP placement of the wound doesn't invalidate the SBT. It invalidates the FPP.

Can you break it all down showing why Dr Baden is correct? You are already alluding to the difference between trajectory of the bullet that passed through JFK and JBC. How about explain the medical information that backs up your claim. Do you have any pictures of the other bullet needed to accomplish your fantastic claim. Will you also explain where the other shooter was located to put a bullet on a downward 45 degree angle through JBC and also the correct transverse left to right angle through JBC. This is really fascinating and I would really like to learn more from you.

This is just a ball of evasion, error, and confusion.

Look, this isn't rocket science. The WC put the wound at C3/C4, above the throat wound, because they claimed the bullet traveled downward through the neck. The HSCA FPP put the wound at T1, below the throat wound, and said the bullet hit at an upward angle and traveled through the body at an upward angle. Baden was simply demonstrating how far forward JFK would have had to be leaning when the bullet hit to enable this shot to align with the sixth-floor window.

Like it or not, the HSCA FPP exploded the SBT -- unless, of course, you can find a photo or frame that shows JFK leaning that far forward during the timeframe of the alleged SBT hit. 

Who in the world said that the bullet that hit Connally's back struck at a 45-degree downward angle? Who? Where do you get that bit of fiction?

No, you would not "like to learn more." Your mind is locked shut and sealed with super glue against any evidence that debunks the SBT, no matter how compelling and self-evident the evidence is. SBT believers should have realized they were abjectly wrong decades ago when we learned that the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt were over 5 inches below the collar and that there was no hole through JFK's tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. You guys are like Flat Earthers who refuse to acknowledge that satellite photos of the Earth refute their theory.

I'm using the Weigman version at the JFK Theorist.
Just to clarify:
1] You accept Altgens 8 shows the Hesters both lying on the grass while Zapruder and Sitzman are by the pedestal.
2] The Bell footage showing only Mrs Hester on the grass and her husband hiding out in the pergola while Zapruder and Sitzman are still moving about by the pedsestal.

The Weigman footage shows the moment Charles Hester gets up and moves to the pergola, heroically abandoning his wife.
The Weigman footage captures the moment that connects point #1 to point #2.
Are you suggesting Zapruder and Sitzman disappear between after point 1 (Altgens8) and reappear at point 2 (Bell)?
Or is it more plausible that, as Weigman runs towards the Hesters, Zapruder and Sitzman are still on top of the pedestal but the footage is too poor to pick them out?
We know Zapruder and Sitzman were still on top of the pedestal while Weigman was running towards the Hesters from the synchronisations provided by the JFK Theorist and me in this thread.
So - can you accept that the Weigman footage is too poor quality to show Zapruder and Sitzman still on the pedestal as Weigman runs towards the Hesters?

If you can provide a version of Weigman that clearly shows Zapruder and Sitzman are NOT on top of the pedestal while Weigman is running towards the Hesters then I will gladly concede that something suspicious is happening.

      There are several issues from credible sources that you have Not taken into consideration: (1) The Thompson interview of Sitzman and her claiming that after getting down from the pedestal, she then went Down to the BOTTOM of the Knoll. (2) Wiegman detailing in "Pictures Of The Pain" that he saw SA Lem Johns UP on the knoll. Just how firm is the Wiegman ID on the Bell Film? The figure falling/running across the top of the knoll is cavalierly accepted as being Wiegman due to his wearing a Hat. Is it possible that SA Lem Johns was wearing a Hat UP on the Knoll? That I am aware of, Wiegman NEVER ID'd himself as being this figure on the Bell Film. Nor did anyone else.

Stanley Karnow's excellent summary of what happened (note the mention of Diem's family, e.g., Nhu and his wife: the problem wasn't just Diem). As he points out, the coup and the deaths deepened US commitment and involvement as, among other things, Diem's successors made things worse and not, as hoped, better. Meanwhile Hanoi, watching this upheaval, stepped up its attacks. The political situation worsened; so did the military.

Karnow's summary is wrong on every major point about Diem and the anti-Diem coup except his observation that Diem's successors made things worse. Karnow did little else but repeat the anti-Diem attacks spread by the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, American so-called "anti-war" agitators, and JFK's liberal anti-Diem advisers.

Shorter: JFK handed LBJ an impossible situation.

Under the principle of command responsibility, yes, JFK handed LBJ a mess in South Vietnam. But, in terms of actual culpability, the bulk of the blame should be placed on Roger Hilsman, Averell Harriman, George Ball, Michael Forrestal, and Henry Cabot Lodge.

Whether JFK would have sent in the hundreds of thousands of troops, made it an American war, is an open question. My guess is no, he wouldn't have.

I tend to doubt that JFK would have sent 536,000 troops to South Vietnam, but Bobby Kennedy's oral history interview suggests that, at a minimum, JFK was prepared to start using heavy air power against North Vietnam and the Viet Cong if necessary.

But the question as to whether he had decided to simply withdraw, unconditionally, is a closed one: he had not. Those conspiracists who say he had are, as usual, simply making things up. To their credit, they're very good at making things up.

They're wrong, but they're not "making things up." They are relying on some of JFK's liberal advisers who belatedly claimed that JFK told them he was determined to completely withdraw from South Vietnam after the election, even if it enabled the Communists to conquer South Vietnam. Of course, they dismiss the accounts of JFK's advisers, such as Rusk and Rostow, who said they never heard JFK say any such thing. They also ignore the fact that the JFK White House tapes contain not a single word that suggests any such intention.

They are also relying on the "secret debrief" that McNamara recorded, only for himself, in September 1963, in which he claimed that JFK had privately told him that he had decided to get out of South Vietnam, even if it meant South Vietnam fell to the Communists.

A number of facts cast serious doubt on the veracity of McNamara’s “secret debrief.” For one thing, McNamara never told anyone about it, never mentioned it in any White House discussions on the Vietnam War, and said nothing about it in his memoir. Not one of McNamara’s adoring aides ever claimed that McNamara told them that JFK had confided to him that he was determined to unconditionally abandon South Vietnam after the election. Moreover, in the numerous JFK and LBJ White House tapes, McNamara never once mentioned JFK’s alleged decision to abandon South Vietnam.   

I devote an entire chapter in A Comforting Lie to debunking the unconditional-withdrawal myth.