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)
Baden was one of several members of the HSCA's FPP who believed that "when the body is repositioned in the anatomic position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward". They were wrong. The majority of that 9 member panel disagreed with them. You have falsely claimed that "several members" equals a majority.
The FPP determined that the entry wound was superior to the ribs. T1 being the uppermost vertebra of the ribs.
Humes was not responsible for the drawings. His placement of the wound on the drawings was too high. However, his testimony that the wound was in the low neck was probably correct.
The Clark Panel measured the entry wound to be about 5.5 cm below a transverse fold in the skin on the back of the neck. The HSCA FPP measured it to be about 6 cm below the skin fold. The Clark Panel measured the wound in the throat to be about 9 cm below the skin fold. The entry wound was above the wound in the throat. It's obvious when viewing the posterior view and the left lateral view of the body that the entry wound was above the wound in the throat. CTs who refuse to admit it will not place a mark on the left lateral view at the level of where the entry wound was because they are incapable of admitting that they are wrong.
