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.
 

You're just flying in the face of reality if you ignore that Nixon tried that Vietnamization plan and it collapsed instantly...Kennedy went to Ambassador Gullion in the 1950's and Gullion confided that if America tried to fight the North Vietnamese that they would end up exactly like the French...Most of what you write is based on revisionist advantage taking of the fact that Kennedy never reached the 1964 election in order to prove his plan...I think DiEugenio has done a good job in showing the concerted world peace initiative and detente Kennedy was trying with his Cold War opponents and that very definitely included unprecedented de-escalation efforts like those he sent Jean Daniel to negotiate in Cuba...

That kind of thing would get you marked for assassination with the right wing Cold Warriors Kennedy faced in his own government...Best illustrated by Douglass...And Oliver Stone...

I wish DiEugenio would step up and counter you over on the Censorship Forum...

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)

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.