Video of Baden before the HSCA

[John McAdams]

Does anybody have a link to that video of Michael Baden before the
HSCA?

The one where he supposedly showed the F8 photo upside down (which in
fact is untrue).

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Pat Speer collection on YouTube. Produced by NoisiVision.


The Mysterious Death of Number Thirty-Five is available on Amazon.
The first section is slightly humorous, in that it shows us an alleged
authority tripping up over the evidentiary flip flops necessitated by
upholding the official story. Speer shows us some rarely seen House
Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) footage of Michael Baden up on
a stage introducing the "Mystery photo".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ


BTW, upside down depends on your point of view.

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

I for one don't remember if he did that or not, and it would take some time
to search it out.

I believe the videos of the HSCA have been removed from the original source.
I do have quite a bit of VHS tape on which I believe Baden appears stored
away.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if he did as the man and his buddy Wecht
are essentially incompetent.

Here's a link where Baden says the autopsy photos were actually taken by a
Secret Service man............the guy is a chump.

http://www.fight.tv/videosection/video/FN5IRCbVhjg&feature=youtube_gdata_player


John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:cl2c089i1f9rip6p5...@4ax.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/18/2012 11:07 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> .John:
>
> I for one don't remember if he did that or not, and it would take some
> time to search it out.
>
> I believe the videos of the HSCA have been removed from the original
> source. I do have quite a bit of VHS tape on which I believe Baden
> appears stored away.
>
> However, I wouldn't be surprised if he did as the man and his buddy
> Wecht are essentially incompetent.
>
> Here's a link where Baden says the autopsy photos were actually taken by
> a Secret Service man............the guy is a chump.
>
> http://www.fight.tv/videosection/video/FN5IRCbVhjg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
>

I had already posted a link to Pat Speer's video. He and I have agreed to
disagree. I think he is making a mountain out of a molehill. I think Baden
believed that he was presenting the exhibit in the correct orientation. To
him as an autopsy doctor it looks ok because he knows how the picture was
taken. Upside down from the way most people would look at it. But it still
shows the forehead being in the foreground.

[John Fiorentino]

I guess you didn't read my post Tony.

I posted a link to Baden stating that the autopsy photos were actually

taken by a "Secret Service man."

Duh!!!

John F.


"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5006fa65$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

Tony and all:

It IS upside down!!!!

Absolutely hysterical..............as Bugs would say re Baden:

"What a maroon".................Personally, I still like "chump."

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:50069faf$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John McAdams]

On 18 Jul 2012 18:38:05 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>Tony and all:
>
>It IS upside down!!!!
>

No it is not.

He points to the forehead (at the top of the photo) and says "the is
the front part of the skull of the president."

He then points to the place that shows beveling on the outer table of
the skull, and says that's "a portion of the gunshot wound of exit."

You've mostly seen it oriented the other way. You've probably seen it
(dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a wound in the back of the
head.

But the orientation Baden shows is the one Stringer would have seen in
his viewfinder.

This is just a bogus factoid worthy of Jim Marrs.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 18 Jul 2012 11:07:27 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>.John:
>
>I for one don't remember if he did that or not, and it would take some time
>to search it out.
>
>I believe the videos of the HSCA have been removed from the original source.
>I do have quite a bit of VHS tape on which I believe Baden appears stored
>away.
>
>However, I wouldn't be surprised if he did as the man and his buddy Wecht
>are essentially incompetent.
>
>Here's a link where Baden says the autopsy photos were actually taken by a
>Secret Service man............the guy is a chump.
>
>http://www.fight.tv/videosection/video/FN5IRCbVhjg&feature=youtube_gdata_player
>
>

You are overlooking the fact that, unlike us buffs here, Baden has
been involved in hundreds, if not thousands of cases.

So ask him a few decades after the fact, and he'll get stuff messed
up.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/18/2012 10:32 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2012 18:38:05 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> Tony and all:
>>
>> It IS upside down!!!!
>>
>
> No it is not.
>
> He points to the forehead (at the top of the photo) and says "the is
> the front part of the skull of the president."
>

Basically correct. The angle of view from the camera lens.

> He then points to the place that shows beveling on the outer table of
> the skull, and says that's "a portion of the gunshot wound of exit."
>

And there was his lie. The point that he told Dox to draw in as the exit
was much higher up on the head than that semi-circle on the forehead.

> You've mostly seen it oriented the other way. You've probably seen it
> (dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a wound in the back of the
> head.
>

I think Lifton was the one who started that nonsense.

[John Fiorentino]

Yes it is!!

Sorry John, but you are wrong on this.

The TOP of JFK's head, (or what is left of it) is pointing at the floor in
Baden's presentation. (IOW upside down)

I will post a comparison to show this.

John F.


"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:g5se08patjtno1lbp...@4ax.com...

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

I really don't know why you continue to defend this boob so staunchly.

I know I've posted here several times about my experiences with Dr.
Lattimer (just for instance) and his comments re: Baden about the
"upwards" trajectory of the bullet through JFK.

I've also researched Baden's background rather extensively, so I say none
of this off the cuff.

The FACT is Baden has the F8 photo upside down and he says the bullet
through JFK went "upwards" (to name just a very few) of his "gaffs."

The FACT is, he's never gotten the circumstances and forensics of this
case correct.

I think readers who may want to investigate this in more depth need only
read his testimony in the OJ trial (Another famous case) to see what type
of individual we're dealing with.

Believe me, there is much more, but I'll try and stick to the point.

BTW .John...........Maybe you're a "buff" but I'm a serious
researcher-author-investigator, etc.

John F.




"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:qdse08p74m1hali6s...@4ax.com...

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>.John
>
>Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the correct
>orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>

I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.

The one you consider right side up is the *usual* orientation, but not
more correct than the other way.

You understand that the photo of the back and the photo of the back of
the head are usually rotated 90 degrees, right? Actually, Kennedy was
lying on his side.


>While Baden correctly identified the "semi-circular defect" where he says
>this is the front of JFK's head......he's actually pointing to the right
>side of the head on a photo that is upside down.
>

I just don't follow you here. It's pointing to the defect. You don't
deny that, do you?


>To .John:

>
>"You've mostly seen it oriented the other way."
>

>No, I haven't.........I have worked with these materials for years on my
>own and with Dr. Lattimer prior to his death.

>
>"You've probably seen it (dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a
>wound in the back of the head."
>

>I've seen all sorts of things, but this photo DOES depict (below the ruler
>visible in the photo) a supposed wound of entry. (This of course is what
>John Canal has been talking about for years.)
>

And Canal has not been making any sense.

> "But the orientation Baden shows is the one Stringer would have seen in
>his viewfinder."
>

>NO, the orientation he saw in his viewfinder, is the one I present.
>

Huh? Kennedy was lying on his *back.*


>And of course to Baden......that would be "Stringer" who??
>

The photographer.


>ALSO......If you notice the ruler in the photo with portions of two gloved
>fingers of the autopsist) visible, it becomes quite evident that the only
>way Stringer could have taken that photo that way is if the whole room was
>upside down.
>

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Kennedy was lying on
his back, and the forehead was upward.


>BUT the MOST telling aspect is that the photo as presented by Baden has
>the TOP of JFK's head pointing to the ground.........IOW to *most* people
>"Upside down."
>

This is a Pat Speer class odd perception.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jul 2012 10:16:48 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>Yes it is!!
>
>Sorry John, but you are wrong on this.
>
>The TOP of JFK's head, (or what is left of it) is pointing at the floor in
>Baden's presentation. (IOW upside down)
>

Look at the notch. That shows that Baden has oriented it with the
forehead upward.

>I will post a comparison to show this.
>

Unfortunately, it does not.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jul 2012 10:18:10 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>.John:
>

>I really don't know why you continue to defend this boob so staunchly.
>
>I know I've posted here several times about my experiences with Dr.
>Lattimer (just for instance) and his comments re: Baden about the
>"upwards" trajectory of the bullet through JFK.
>
>I've also researched Baden's background rather extensively, so I say none
>of this off the cuff.
>
>The FACT is Baden has the F8 photo upside down and he says the bullet
>through JFK went "upwards" (to name just a very few) of his "gaffs."
>
>The FACT is, he's never gotten the circumstances and forensics of this
>case correct.
>
>I think readers who may want to investigate this in more depth need only
>read his testimony in the OJ trial (Another famous case) to see what type
>of individual we're dealing with.
>
>Believe me, there is much more, but I'll try and stick to the point.
>
>BTW .John...........Maybe you're a "buff" but I'm a serious
>researcher-author-investigator, etc.
>

But you are "into" this case alone. Baden has dealt with hundreds or
thousands of cases.

So his memory is simply faulty on some stuff (Secret Service agent
took autopsy photos).

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/18/2012 6:37 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I guess you didn't read my post Tony.
>
> I posted a link to Baden stating that the autopsy photos were actually
> taken by a "Secret Service man."
>
> Duh!!!
>

WoW!!!!!!

Baden made a slip. And so you think this proved a massive government
conspiracy.

[John Fiorentino]

Nope, I'm not "into the case alone"...............That's a very poor excuse
.John for Baden's incompetence.

Do YOU believe the bullet that struck JFK in the back went "upwards" .John?

Lattimer almost a stroke when I showed him Baden's book.

In fact, he sent an aide of his to buy the paperback edition of "Unnatural
Death" to verify that the info I gave him was correct.

He later apologized to me.

A look.might I say a "competent look" at the autopsy photos shows the
DOWNWARD trajectory of that missile.

MMMMMM..Up and down.............seems Baden has a problem with the entire
concept.

John F.





"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:v57g081o4igrbiqop...@4ax.com...

[John Fiorentino]

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:jl6g08tevii3qsqls...@4ax.com...

> On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>>.John
>>
>>Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the correct
>>orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>>
>
> I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
> the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.
>

No, .John. In order for Stringer to get that orientation he would have had
to have been taking that shot over the autopsists shoulder. (An *extremely*
unlikely event)

Now, *theoretically* the autopsist *could* have taken that view,
unfortunately you can't hold and place a ruler and operate a camera at the
same time, unless of course you have an extra set of arms and hands.

> The one you consider right side up is the *usual* orientation, but not
> more correct than the other way.

No, actually *most* of the CT's have it oriented another way.

>
> You understand that the photo of the back and the photo of the back of
> the head are usually rotated 90 degrees, right? Actually, Kennedy was
> lying on his side.

If you're referring to the BOH photo which shows hair and the HSCA entry in
the scalp, my answer is yes. But that has nothing to do with this.

>
>
>>While Baden correctly identified the "semi-circular defect" where he says
>>this is the front of JFK's head......he's actually pointing to the right
>>side of the head on a photo that is upside down.
>>
>
> I just don't follow you here. It's pointing to the defect. You don't
> deny that, do you?

No, I already said that. But you can" point to the defect" in ANY
orientation. Are we on the same page here?

>
>
>>To .John:
>>
>>"You've mostly seen it oriented the other way."
>>
>>No, I haven't.........I have worked with these materials for years on my
>>own and with Dr. Lattimer prior to his death.
>>
>>"You've probably seen it (dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a
>>wound in the back of the head."
>>
>>I've seen all sorts of things, but this photo DOES depict (below the ruler
>>visible in the photo) a supposed wound of entry. (This of course is what
>>John Canal has been talking about for years.)
>>
>
> And Canal has not been making any sense.

*Some* of what Canal says is accurate. He has the orientation correct.

>
>
>> "But the orientation Baden shows is the one Stringer would have seen in
>>his viewfinder."
>>
>>NO, the orientation he saw in his viewfinder, is the one I present.
>>
>
> Huh? Kennedy was lying on his *back.*

What is your point here .John?

>
>>And of course to Baden......that would be "Stringer" who??
>>
>
> The photographer.

I was being facetious here .John....re: Baden saying the autopsy photos were
taken by a SS man..remember?

>
>
>>ALSO......If you notice the ruler in the photo with portions of two gloved
>>fingers of the autopsist) visible, it becomes quite evident that the only
>>way Stringer could have taken that photo that way is if the whole room was
>>upside down.
>>
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about here. Kennedy was lying on
> his back, and the forehead was upward.

You previously said he was lying on his back............anyway......Do you
NOT see the ruler and the portions of the gloved fingers in the photo??

>
>
>>BUT the MOST telling aspect is that the photo as presented by Baden has
>>the TOP of JFK's head pointing to the ground.........IOW to *most* people
>>"Upside down."
>>
>
> This is a Pat Speer class odd perception.

Sorry, he got this right I guess.


BTW, I'd be happy to send you anything you wish via e-mail or talk on the
phone to get this cleared up and help you understand.

Regards,

John F.


>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

.John

I just want to post this other comment:

In the video I posted the link to where Baden claims the autopsy photos
were actually taken by a Secret Service man, he also indicates they were
of "poor quality" because this phantom SS man wasn't trained in taking
autopsy photos.

.John excuses Baden by saying essentially he's a busy man who may forget
things...(as though none of *us* are busy, I suppose)

Anyway, here's Dr. John Lattimer's opinion of the autopsy photos taken by
Navy photographer John TO. Stringer.

"The pictures are technically excellent,....."

John F.



"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:qdse08p74m1hali6s...@4ax.com...

[John Fiorentino]

correction here.

"Navy photographer John TO. Stringer."

Should read John T. Stringer of course.

John F.





"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote in message news:...

[John Fiorentino]

and another goof.I forgot the cite:........sorry

"The pictures are technically excellent,....."

Kennedy and Lincoln pg. 192

[John Fiorentino]

Tony:

WoW!!!!!!
>
> Baden made a slip. And so you think this proved a massive government
> conspiracy.

It's me, hello??................You know the Lonenutter?

What the heck are you saying?

Sheesh.

No, I point out his error and have shown that this is far from the only
one he made.

Now you know I don't think there was a conspiracy. Did you say that to
confuse any newbies here?

Shame on you!

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:5007a481$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jul 2012 11:36:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>
>"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>news:jl6g08tevii3qsqls...@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>
>>>.John
>>>
>>>Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the correct
>>>orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>>>
>>
>> I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
>> the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.
>>
>
>No, .John. In order for Stringer to get that orientation he would have had
>to have been taking that shot over the autopsists shoulder. (An *extremely*
>unlikely event)
>
>Now, *theoretically* the autopsist *could* have taken that view,
>unfortunately you can't hold and place a ruler and operate a camera at the
>same time, unless of course you have an extra set of arms and hands.
>
>

I just don't follow you here.

What you are saying makes no sense.

Kennedy was on his back. His forehead would have been upward.

The exit defect (with the beveling) would have been exactly where
Baden shows it.

Would you admit that he *did* point to the exit defect?

>
>
>> The one you consider right side up is the *usual* orientation, but not
>> more correct than the other way.
>
>No, actually *most* of the CT's have it oriented another way.
>

You mean with the 90 degree rotation? We both know that that was
dishonest.

>>
>> You understand that the photo of the back and the photo of the back of
>> the head are usually rotated 90 degrees, right? Actually, Kennedy was
>> lying on his side.
>
>If you're referring to the BOH photo which shows hair and the HSCA entry in
>the scalp, my answer is yes. But that has nothing to do with this.
>

Yes, it does. Just because a photo is *usually* shown with a
particular orientation does not mean that somebody is *wrong* if they
show it in another orientation.

>
>>
>>
>>>While Baden correctly identified the "semi-circular defect" where he says
>>>this is the front of JFK's head......he's actually pointing to the right
>>>side of the head on a photo that is upside down.
>>>
>>
>> I just don't follow you here. It's pointing to the defect. You don't
>> deny that, do you?
>
>No, I already said that. But you can" point to the defect" in ANY
>orientation. Are we on the same page here?
>

If Baden was so clueless, how did he know where the exit defect was?

In fact, he correlated with another drawing, right beside the photo,
showing the defect at the coronal suture.

>
>>
>>
>>>To .John:
>>>
>>>"You've mostly seen it oriented the other way."
>>>
>>>No, I haven't.........I have worked with these materials for years on my
>>>own and with Dr. Lattimer prior to his death.
>>>
>>>"You've probably seen it (dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a
>>>wound in the back of the head."
>>>
>>>I've seen all sorts of things, but this photo DOES depict (below the ruler
>>>visible in the photo) a supposed wound of entry. (This of course is what
>>>John Canal has been talking about for years.)
>>>
>>
>> And Canal has not been making any sense.
>
>*Some* of what Canal says is accurate. He has the orientation correct.
>

I assume so. I stopped following his arguments long ago.

>
>
>>
>>
>>> "But the orientation Baden shows is the one Stringer would have seen in
>>>his viewfinder."
>>>
>>>NO, the orientation he saw in his viewfinder, is the one I present.
>>>
>>
>> Huh? Kennedy was lying on his *back.*
>
>What is your point here .John?
>

If he was lying on his back, his forehead would have been at the *top*
of the image in Stringer's viewfinder.

>
>>
>>>And of course to Baden......that would be "Stringer" who??
>>>
>>
>> The photographer.
>
>I was being facetious here .John....re: Baden saying the autopsy photos were
>taken by a SS man..remember?
>

So what? That's a different issue.

We were talking about whether he orientated the photo upside down.

>
>>
>>
>>>ALSO......If you notice the ruler in the photo with portions of two gloved
>>>fingers of the autopsist) visible, it becomes quite evident that the only
>>>way Stringer could have taken that photo that way is if the whole room was
>>>upside down.
>>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about here. Kennedy was lying on
>> his back, and the forehead was upward.
>
>You previously said he was lying on his back............anyway......Do you
>NOT see the ruler and the portions of the gloved fingers in the photo??
>

Not in the video, but in other copies, yes.

But so what?

>>
>>
>>>BUT the MOST telling aspect is that the photo as presented by Baden has
>>>the TOP of JFK's head pointing to the ground.........IOW to *most* people
>>>"Upside down."
>>>
>>
>> This is a Pat Speer class odd perception.
>
>Sorry, he got this right I guess.
>
>
>BTW, I'd be happy to send you anything you wish via e-mail or talk on the
>phone to get this cleared up and help you understand.
>

Well . . . I'm quite convinced that I *do* have it cleared up.

Maybe you can try saying more clearly what your argument is.

Why, exactly, should the forehead be orientated at the *bottom* of the
image?

Why is it upside down the way Baden orients it?

And do you admit that when he points to the forehead, it is indeed the
forehead he is pointing to?

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Canal]

In article <50085ab0....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

The best way not to look silly in an argument is to run from the argument.
That's what you done with me for years. You don't know the medical
evidence and have bluffed your way discussions about same.

For instance I hope you two realize (I think JF does at least) that the
semicircular defect above JFK's right eye, that Baden (and even Dr. Angel)
said was the exit, was medical miles from the real exit.

You do realize that...don't you?

The "real" exit was in the corner of the largest late arriving skull piece
and it [the exit] articuated with the coronal suture....and, again, was
hardly above his right eye.

I know JF knows where the coronal suture is in relation to the area above
the right eye....do you .john?

Both Baden and Angel (plus H & B and the other members of the FPP) agreed
the "principal" exit was just forward of the coronal suture.....again
medical miles from the exit "looking" defect above his right eye, which is
seen misorientated BTW in HSCA F-60.

BTW, they also agreed there was no other significant exits because the
estimated diameter (2.5 cm) of the aforementioned "principal" exit was so
large.

Afer, John F. sees the originals (hopefully F8, ala #44 & #45,
stereoscopically), I hope he will have the class I think he has to admit
you both have been wrong about the entry location.

John F., I'm not holding my breath on your visit though because you
stated, what 3-4 years ago (?), you'd have a conclusion about the 6.5 mm
thing and...voila.

Ok, it could have been health issues which I'm glad seem to be behind
you....but, even considering the circumstances, it's still been quite a
while, no?

Any update? I assume you didn't come to a conclusion you were embarrased
to post? :-)

Anyway, .john I think you preditably get out of Dodge when we cross paths
here (on threads re. the medical evidence) because I keep reminding you
that you posted the defect (seen below the ruler and centered in F8) which
I've stated for years is the entry was "deep inside the cranial
cavity".....only to see you try to bail yourself out by claiming that
defect is not the entry.

Wierd looking defect (semi-circular) if it's not the entry...especially
since it's directly below the 2.5 cm mark on the ruler as well as centered
n a photo titled, "Missile wound in posterior skull..."...wouldn't you
say?

:-)

And, BTW, that's the same defect that John F. admits "might"--ya right
John F. :-)--be the entry.

But just as Harris, Speer, Marsh, and the other CTs stubbornly stand by
their silly claims, you'll stand by yours re. the entry location....it's
all about saving face.

JF, please get to the NA ASAP...thanks.

John Canal

[...]

>.John


--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2012 5:41 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

> news:50085ab0.2519996860@news.supernews.com...

>> On 19 Jul 2012 11:36:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:jl6g08tevii3qsqls...@4ax.com...
>>>> On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>>> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> .John
>>>>>
>>>>> Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the
>>>>> correct
>>>>> orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
>>>> the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, .John. In order for Stringer to get that orientation he would
>>> have had
>>> to have been taking that shot over the autopsists shoulder. (An
>>> *extremely*
>>> unlikely event)
>>>
>>> Now, *theoretically* the autopsist *could* have taken that view,
>>> unfortunately you can't hold and place a ruler and operate a camera
>>> at the
>>> same time, unless of course you have an extra set of arms and hands.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I just don't follow you here.
>

> I'm sorry, I offered to help in any way I could.

>
>
>>
>> What you are saying makes no sense.
>

> It makes perfect sense .John, because that's the way it is.

>
>
>>
>> Kennedy was on his back. His forehead would have been upward.
>

> Correct. His forehead WAS upward. (Facing the camera would be more
> appropriate, but ok.)

>
>>
>> The exit defect (with the beveling) would have been exactly where
>> Baden shows it.
>>

No. Baden lied. That exit defect on the forehead is what Dr. Angel
pointed out. But Baden placed it on the coronal suture. To get the
wounds to point back to the sniper's nest.

>> Would you admit that he *did* point to the exit defect?
>

> Yes, .John since apparently you want me to repeat myself. However, where
> Baden says this is Kennedy's forehead, he is actually pointing to the
> right side of jfk's head, NOT his forehead. You can see the defect in
> the photo, but it is upsidedown. In Baden's orientation, the missing
> bone at the right side and top of jfk's head is at the bottom of the
> picture.
>
> If you took a picture of a man standing in a room (fully clothed) could
> you point to his shoes if you turned the photo upside down?........Yes
> of course.........sideways right...yes.sideways left, yes..........But
> that's not how the photo was taken is it John?
>

The photo was taken upside down. It a famous photographer take a photo
with his camera held upside down does that mean the the world is upside
down?

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The one you consider right side up is the *usual* orientation, but not
>>>> more correct than the other way.
>>>
>>> No, actually *most* of the CT's have it oriented another way.
>>>
>>
>> You mean with the 90 degree rotation? We both know that that was
>> dishonest.
>
>

> I'm going to post here how they *usually* show it.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You understand that the photo of the back and the photo of the back of
>>>> the head are usually rotated 90 degrees, right? Actually, Kennedy was
>>>> lying on his side.
>>>
>>> If you're referring to the BOH photo which shows hair and the HSCA
>>> entry in
>>> the scalp, my answer is yes. But that has nothing to do with this.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it does. Just because a photo is *usually* shown with a
>> particular orientation does not mean that somebody is *wrong* if they
>> show it in another orientation.
>

> Yes and no .John.....Do you think it would be appropriate to show THAT
> photo upside down?? Come on .John

>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> While Baden correctly identified the "semi-circular defect" where
>>>>> he says
>>>>> this is the front of JFK's head......he's actually pointing to the
>>>>> right
>>>>> side of the head on a photo that is upside down.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I just don't follow you here. It's pointing to the defect. You don't
>>>> deny that, do you?
>>>
>>> No, I already said that. But you can" point to the defect" in ANY
>>> orientation. Are we on the same page here?
>>>
>>
>> If Baden was so clueless, how did he know where the exit defect was?
>>
>> In fact, he correlated with another drawing, right beside the photo,
>> showing the defect at the coronal suture.
>
>

> And do you think THAT drawing should be shown upside down??

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> To .John:
>>>>>
>>>>> "You've mostly seen it oriented the other way."
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I haven't.........I have worked with these materials for years
>>>>> on my
>>>>> own and with Dr. Lattimer prior to his death.
>>>>>
>>>>> "You've probably seen it (dishonestly) rotated 90 degrees to suggest a
>>>>> wound in the back of the head."
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen all sorts of things, but this photo DOES depict (below
>>>>> the ruler
>>>>> visible in the photo) a supposed wound of entry. (This of course is
>>>>> what
>>>>> John Canal has been talking about for years.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And Canal has not been making any sense.
>>>
>>> *Some* of what Canal says is accurate. He has the orientation correct.
>>>
>>
>> I assume so. I stopped following his arguments long ago.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "But the orientation Baden shows is the one Stringer would have
>>>>> seen in
>>>>> his viewfinder."
>>>>>
>>>>> NO, the orientation he saw in his viewfinder, is the one I present.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Kennedy was lying on his *back.*
>>>
>>> What is your point here .John?
>>>
>>
>> If he was lying on his back, his forehead would have been at the *top*
>> of the image in Stringer's viewfinder.
>

> The photo was taken at an approx 30 degree upward slant, if memory
> serves me correctly. Actually, while the forehead is facing the camera
> at a slight oblique angle. However, the photo was meant to show MORE
> than the semi-circular defect as evidenced by the autopsist holding the
> ruler down into the nearly empty cranial vault. And in fact the forehead
> is NOT at the top of the photo. The top shows the autopsist with the
> ruler. (The photo is cropped, I'm sure you know)

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And of course to Baden......that would be "Stringer" who??
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The photographer.
>>>
>>> I was being facetious here .John....re: Baden saying the autopsy
>>> photos were
>>> taken by a SS man..remember?
>>>
>>
>> So what? That's a different issue.
>>
>> We were talking about whether he orientated the photo upside down.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ALSO......If you notice the ruler in the photo with portions of two
>>>>> gloved
>>>>> fingers of the autopsist) visible, it becomes quite evident that
>>>>> the only
>>>>> way Stringer could have taken that photo that way is if the whole
>>>>> room was
>>>>> upside down.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you are talking about here. Kennedy was lying on
>>>> his back, and the forehead was upward.
>
>

> See above.

>
>>>
>>> You previously said he was lying on his
>>> back............anyway......Do you
>>> NOT see the ruler and the portions of the gloved fingers in the photo??
>>>
>>
>> Not in the video, but in other copies, yes.
>>
>> But so what?
>
>

> Then you must realize, for Stringer to take the photo in the fashion you
> envision he would have had to have done so over the shoulder of the
> autopsist. (Not *impossible* but I really can't see in reality how this
> could be accomplished. I guess a better comment would be WHY anyone
> would try.)

>
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BUT the MOST telling aspect is that the photo as presented by Baden
>>>>> has
>>>>> the TOP of JFK's head pointing to the ground.........IOW to *most*
>>>>> people
>>>>> "Upside down."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a Pat Speer class odd perception.
>>>
>>> Sorry, he got this right I guess.
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW, I'd be happy to send you anything you wish via e-mail or talk on
>>> the
>>> phone to get this cleared up and help you understand.
>>>
>>
>> Well . . . I'm quite convinced that I *do* have it cleared up.
>>
>> Maybe you can try saying more clearly what your argument is.
>>
>> Why, exactly, should the forehead be orientated at the *bottom* of the
>> image?
>>
>> Why is it upside down the way Baden orients it?
>>
>> And do you admit that when he points to the forehead, it is indeed the
>> forehead he is pointing to?
>

> Actually NO .John when he says forehead, he points to the right side of
> jfk's head. (Because the photo is upside down. When he points to the
> defect, he gets it right.)
>
> I've posted the ct orientation (most used one) and the photo again as
> Baden has it, and I've labeled the ruler differently to hopefully aid in
> your understnding.
>
> John F.
>

Blame David Lifton for the most common CT orientation.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2012 3:16 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Jul 2012 11:36:52 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
>> news:jl6g08tevii3qsqls...@4ax.com...
>>> On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>>> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> .John
>>>>
>>>> Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the correct
>>>> orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
>>> the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.
>>>
>>
>> No, .John. In order for Stringer to get that orientation he would have had
>> to have been taking that shot over the autopsists shoulder. (An *extremely*
>> unlikely event)
>>
>> Now, *theoretically* the autopsist *could* have taken that view,
>> unfortunately you can't hold and place a ruler and operate a camera at the
>> same time, unless of course you have an extra set of arms and hands.
>>
>>
>
> I just don't follow you here.
>
> What you are saying makes no sense.
>
> Kennedy was on his back. His forehead would have been upward.
>

Prove that he was on his back. How can he be on his back when we see the
hole on the autopsy table?
I think someone made a mockup of that photo using a dummy on a table.
But I am not sure it is on the Web.

> The exit defect (with the beveling) would have been exactly where
> Baden shows it.
>

No. Baden lied. That is where Dr. Angel put an exit defect.
Baden said it was on the coronal suture, much higher up. He had to move
it to get the his entrance and exit to lead back to the sniper's nest.

> Would you admit that he *did* point to the exit defect?
>

Would you admit that he *did* point to the entrance defect?

>
>>
>>
>>> The one you consider right side up is the *usual* orientation, but not
>>> more correct than the other way.
>>
>> No, actually *most* of the CT's have it oriented another way.
>>
>
> You mean with the 90 degree rotation? We both know that that was
> dishonest.

Intentionally so. Not a simple mistake.

>
>>>
>>> You understand that the photo of the back and the photo of the back of
>>> the head are usually rotated 90 degrees, right? Actually, Kennedy was
>>> lying on his side.
>>
>> If you're referring to the BOH photo which shows hair and the HSCA entry in
>> the scalp, my answer is yes. But that has nothing to do with this.
>>
>
> Yes, it does. Just because a photo is *usually* shown with a
> particular orientation does not mean that somebody is *wrong* if they
> show it in another orientation.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> While Baden correctly identified the "semi-circular defect" where he says
>>>> this is the front of JFK's head......he's actually pointing to the right
>>>> side of the head on a photo that is upside down.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just don't follow you here. It's pointing to the defect. You don't
>>> deny that, do you?
>>
>> No, I already said that. But you can" point to the defect" in ANY
>> orientation. Are we on the same page here?
>>
>
> If Baden was so clueless, how did he know where the exit defect was?
>

He didn't. He lied.

> In fact, he correlated with another drawing, right beside the photo,
> showing the defect at the coronal suture.
>

Baden ordered Dox to put the dot where HE wanted the wound.

The photo was taken upside down.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2012 2:58 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Tony:
>
> WoW!!!!!!
>>
>> Baden made a slip. And so you think this proved a massive government
>> conspiracy.
>
> It's me, hello??................You know the Lonenutter?
>
> What the heck are you saying?
>
> Sheesh.
>
> No, I point out his error and have shown that this is far from the only
> one he made.
>

No, it was not an error. It was a deliberate lie about where the bullet
defect was.

> Now you know I don't think there was a conspiracy. Did you say that to
> confuse any newbies here?
>

Endorsing the WC is a massive conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2012 10:18 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> .John:
>
> I really don't know why you continue to defend this boob so staunchly.
>
> I know I've posted here several times about my experiences with Dr.
> Lattimer (just for instance) and his comments re: Baden about the
> "upwards" trajectory of the bullet through JFK.
>
> I've also researched Baden's background rather extensively, so I say
> none of this off the cuff.
>

But you've never bothered talking to Baden. Only to WC defenders.

> The FACT is Baden has the F8 photo upside down and he says the bullet
> through JFK went "upwards" (to name just a very few) of his "gaffs."
>
> The FACT is, he's never gotten the circumstances and forensics of this
> case correct.
>
> I think readers who may want to investigate this in more depth need only
> read his testimony in the OJ trial (Another famous case) to see what
> type of individual we're dealing with.
>
> Believe me, there is much more, but I'll try and stick to the point.
>
> BTW .John...........Maybe you're a "buff" but I'm a serious
> researcher-author-investigator, etc.
>

Investigator? Oh really? As in cop or FBI agent?
Or as in car insurance investigator?

[John Fiorentino]

.John and all:

You know I was going to address Tony's many points?? here, but I will just
make a brief statement:

Baden DOES indeed present F8 "upside down." When he indicates he is pointing
to the front of JFK's head (or forehead) he is actually pointing to the
right side of the head.

When he points to the semi-circular defect, he is in the general area (at
least) of what is depicted on the drawing.

It's impossible here to cover ALL of the details regarding what is visible
(or thought to be visible) in that picture.

But the issue was did Baden show F8 "upside down" and the answer to that is
YES.

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:50093854$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/19/2012 11:36 AM, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:jl6g08tevii3qsqls...@4ax.com...
>> On 19 Jul 2012 10:19:43 -0400, "John Fiorentino"
>> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>>
>>> .John
>>>
>>> Attached you will see F8 as presented by Baden to the HSCA and the
>>> correct
>>> orientation with my graphics superimposed.
>>>
>>
>> I just don't follow you. The one you call "upside down" is actually
>> the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.
>>
>
> No, .John. In order for Stringer to get that orientation he would have
> had to have been taking that shot over the autopsists shoulder. (An
> *extremely* unlikely event)
>
> Now, *theoretically* the autopsist *could* have taken that view,
> unfortunately you can't hold and place a ruler and operate a camera at
> the same time, unless of course you have an extra set of arms and hands.
>

FYI. the autopsy doctors did not take the autopsy photos themselves.

So do I.

[John Fiorentino]

All:

You know being here honestly stinks sometimes as the snide remarks and
innuendos never seem to cease.

Most especially from those who must comment on every post ever made. (or
so it seems)

Do you wonder why many have simply given up and left?

Like my good friend Steve Barber, (who still posts occasionally) but not
as much as I would like to see.

Oh yes Tony, "car insurance investigator" and ambulance chaser if that
makes you happy?? (Of course that's not true, but I'm sure to Tony it
really doesn't matter)

And it is true I've never spoken to Baden firsthand. Neither have I spoken
to Wecht or many of the other incompetents in this case.

But I have spoken to MANY who are not "Warren Commission defenders."

And if again, if by WC defender Tony means believes EVERYTHING in the
report, he is sadly mistaken. However, I do believe LHO alone and unaided
killed JFK.

John F.



"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:500941d0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John McAdams]

On 20 Jul 2012 12:36:49 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>.John and all:
>
>You know I was going to address Tony's many points?? here, but I will just
>make a brief statement:
>
>Baden DOES indeed present F8 "upside down." When he indicates he is pointing
>to the front of JFK's head (or forehead) he is actually pointing to the
>right side of the head.
>

No, he is not. The notch indicates the orientation. When he says
"front part of the skull of the president," he points to the area to
the *left* (from his perspective) of the notch. That's forehead.

>When he points to the semi-circular defect, he is in the general area (at
>least) of what is depicted on the drawing.
>
>It's impossible here to cover ALL of the details regarding what is visible
>(or thought to be visible) in that picture.
>
>But the issue was did Baden show F8 "upside down" and the answer to that is
>YES.
>

That's just nonsense. What video are you watching?

When he says "this is the front part of the skull of the president,"
he's pointing to the area *above* (from his perspective) the huge
defect.

It's obvious that Kennedy was lying on the autopsy table face up.
Stringer was at the head of the table, with his camera pointed down to
show the nature of the huge defect.

You claim that he would have to have been shooting over the shoulder
of an autopsist makes no sense. The fellowing holding the rule could
have been standing beside him, or on either side of the table (which
was not six feet wide, you know).

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jul 2012 11:36:46 -0400, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>Nope, I'm not "into the case alone"...............That's a very poor excuse
>.John for Baden's incompetence.
>

In fact, you like me are not a forensic pathologist who has to deal
with a new case every day. Both of us have spent a huge amount of
time with this case, and virtually none with any other.

If you had to deal with the forensic aspects of a new case every day
or so, you probably would get some details mixed up too.

>Do YOU believe the bullet that struck JFK in the back went "upwards" .John?
>

Baden's position is that it went upward RELATIVE TO THE ANATOMIC
POSITION.

Kennedy was slouched forward. See Canning in HSCA 6 on this.

I think Baden is wrong about this, but don't misstate his position.

>Lattimer almost a stroke when I showed him Baden's book.
>

Aguilar (who hates everybody who disagrees with him) did an essay on
mistakes in Baden's book.

Of course he should have gone back and looked at all the HSCA stuff.

But using his poor memory decades later to try to impeach his
conclusions (shared, in virtually every case by the other forensic
pathologists who have seen the autopsy materials) isn't sound logic.

>In fact, he sent an aide of his to buy the paperback edition of "Unnatural
>Death" to verify that the info I gave him was correct.
>
>He later apologized to me.
>
>A look.might I say a "competent look" at the autopsy photos shows the
>DOWNWARD trajectory of that missile.
>
>MMMMMM..Up and down.............seems Baden has a problem with the entire
>concept.
>

Not with regard to the photo he is showing the HSCA.

[John Fiorentino]

Really, Tony???

What a revelation!!!

You DO know the meaning of "theoretically" don't you??

John F.





"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:50093ea9$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

Oh .John I'm kinda surprised, but hey, it is what it is.

You can continue to make excuses for Baden if you wish.

"Both of us have spent a huge amount of time with this case, and virtually
none with any other."

I don't know HOW you can know that about me .John?

Maybe it applies to YOU, but I'm afraid you are a bit presumptuous here.
In fact, you are simply wrong.

Yes .John in the "anatomic position" but anyway you slice it, he's wrong.
And frankly, I as did Dr. Lattimer question his motive here.

.John says: "Not with regard to the photo he is showing the HSCA."

I say: You can repeat it til the end of time, but you are simply wrong.
Sorry.

Regards,

John F.





"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:5009b7db.2609382219@news.supernews.com...

[John Fiorentino]

"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:juahu...@drn.newsguy.com...

If I've been wrong John, I will certainly admit it.

>
> John F., I'm not holding my breath on your visit though because you
> stated, what 3-4 years ago (?), you'd have a conclusion about the 6.5 mm
> thing and...voila.

I can't reach a "conclusion" without viewing the original scan.

That is my main reason for persuing thuis.

>
> Ok, it could have been health issues which I'm glad seem to be behind
> you....but, even considering the circumstances, it's still been quite a
> while, no?
>

Yes and No.......... :-)......... I almost kicked it several times, so
maybe a little slack??

> Any update? I assume you didn't come to a conclusion you were embarrased
> to post? :-)

Nope, see above

[John Canal]

In article <5009d9ea$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, John Fiorentino says...

TOP POST

John,

Thanks for replying...I thought you missed my comments for your attention
because included them in my reply to .john's post and just now subitted a
new post asking you two questions.....sorry for the redundancy.

No need to reply to the extra post.

BTW, of course .john didn't reply to my post because he avoids arguing
with me on issues related to the medical evidence. IMO, that's because
that's one aspect of this case he's not well read on.

His excuse for not engaging me is that I don't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm anxious for you to see the originals (especially 44 & 45).

Why? Here's why. Just like when Chad Z. and Sturdivan (both were unsure
about the entry location before they went) were planning to see them, I
knew--and even bet--when they came back they'd realize Fisher was wrong
about the cowlick entry (Baden just covered for him).....and I'm confident
you'll draw the same conclusions [as Chad and Larry did].

Then when you get back and post that I've been right all along about this
entry stuff, I predict .john will:

Not only refuse to admit I've been making any sense, but also say you've
stoped making any sense.

I've even told him eventually more and more researchers and/or experts
will see the originals (44 & 45) and realize Baden pulled the wool over
his (and Posner's & VB's, and others') eyes about the cowlick entry and
he's going to need a bigger bus to throw those additional individuals
under.

in any event, I hope you see the originals soon so we get to see how
accurate or inaccurate my prediction is...after all, I don't know about
you but I'm not getting any younger or healthier.

:-)

Regards,

John Canal

--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:02:09 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> Does anybody have a link to that video of Michael Baden before the
> HSCA?
>
> The one where he supposedly showed the F8 photo upside down (which in
> fact is untrue).
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I've been gone for a few days, but am glad to see that at least one person on this newsgroup--John F--can watch Baden's testimony, and see what he did.

He pointed to intact bone above and to the right of the beveled bone on the autopsy photo, and said it was the bone above and to the right of the black mark representing the beveled exit on the drawing of Kennedy. If he'd placed the autopsy photo on the stand to represent Stringer's view from the top of the table, as John M chooses to believe, the bone to the right of the beveled exit on the autopsy photo would correspond to bone BELOW the beveled exit on the drawing. This is shown here:

http://www.patspeer.com/aworldup.jpg

Whether or not he intended to do so, Baden had thereby testified that the large defect was on the side of the head, and the intact bone in the autopsy photo on top of the head.

John F is also correct on another point: Baden is fairly clueless about the Kennedy assassination medical evidence. In Chapter 13b, I collect a bunch of Baden's mis-statements, and prove beyond any doubt, IMO, that he is far from reliable, and is basically blithering, repeating factoid after factoid.

Baden's Reign of Error 2008

In the 1-09-08 episode of Autopsy, Dr. Baden's program on HBO, he reviewed the evidence in the Kennedy assassination, and made a number of bizarre claims. Here is a healthy sample.

When discussing the initial press conference given by Kennedy's emergency room doctors. Dr. Baden proclaimed "In fact, the doctors down in Texas, where the shooting occurred, indicated he'd been shot in the back and in the front." (The doctors, in fact, indicated no such thing. They described an entrance in Kennedy's throat and a large wound on the back of his head. They presumed this to be an exit for the bullet entering his throat. They said nothing to indicate the bullet causing this wound came from behind Kennedy.)
When discussing the initial autopsy, the program's narrator asserted: "Because the pathologist's notes were stained with blood, he burned them. After he found out that a tracheotomy had been performed in Dallas, he tried to reconstitute his notes, based on what he could remember." (This is nonsense. Dr. Humes, the pathologist in question, testified in 1996 that he burned his notes only after copying them, and that he burned these notes the day after he found out about the tracheotomy. He'd made similar claims to Dr. Baden and the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1977, and the Warren Commission in 1964. The implication that the initial autopsy report was in error because Dr. Humes couldn't remember what he saw is thus unjustified and deceptive. Is it a coincidence, then, that this misrepresentation feeds Dr. Baden's eventual conclusion that the autopsy report was riddled with errors, but that these errors were somehow "innocent." One suspects not.)
Shortly thereafter, when discussing the autopsy photos, Dr. Baden repeated the story of Floyd Riebe, a navy photographer whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service. He then explained what he considers to be the poor quality of the photos by stating "The only one who was taking photographs was a Secret Service person who'd never taken autopsy photos before." (This is frighteningly inaccurate. The remaining autopsy photographer was John Stringer, the Navy's top autopsy photographer, and Riebe's superior. In Unnatural Death, published nearly 20 years before making this statement, Baden claimed the lone photographer was an FBI photographer. This incensed the original autopsists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, so much that they made a point of debunking Baden's claim in a 1992 interview with the Journal of the American Medical Association. One would have thought that Dr. Baden would remember his getting schooled in such a fashion, and have not repeated this mistake, but apparently Dr. Baden is correction-proof. )
When complaining about the autopsy report, Dr. Baden claimed that the autopsy doctors "did not make proper measurements of the bullet holes, did not properly describe the bullet holes as to entrance and exit." (This last statement is a puzzle. The 1978 pathology panel led by Dr. Baden came to the exact same conclusions as the autopsy report, as to which holes were entrance and exit. Perhaps he was thinking of the original conclusions of the doctors on the night of the autopsy, as opposed to the report they signed two days later.)
Later, Baden pronounced his support for the conclusion that Oswald acted alone and that the timing problems raised by the Zapruder film could be explained by the "fact" that the first shot missed. He said: "There was only one shooter, Oswald. The Zapruder film on close analysis shows the first bullet miss and hit the curb of the road that the car was traveling." (This is only the most ill-informed statement ever uttered by a supposed expert on the case. Not one analysis of the film, including those performed by the most zealous single-assassin theorists proposing Oswald acted alone, has claimed that a bullet strike on the curb is visible. Those holding that a first shot miss is detectable base their claims upon blurs on the film thought to coincide with rifle shots, and the behavior of a few of the witnesses. None have insinuated they could see the bullet hit a curb. Baden's contention therefore is a dead giveaway that he was making this stuff up as he went along, based on what he could remember, and that NO ONE at HBO thought to run this show by anyone with the slightest smidgen of genuine knowledge about the case.)
But Baden wasn't done. To combat the argument that Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left motion after the head shot indicated a shot was fired from the front, Baden argued: "Subsequent experiments show, and subsequent experience with people being shot do show that when someone is shot from the front they can go front or back--sometimes front, sometimes back. It isn't predictable what way the body is gonna go." (If anyone knows what "experiments" he is talking about, please bring these "experiments" to my attention. In the meantime, we can suspect that Dr. Baden was thinking of the tests performed by Dr. Olivier, and discussed in his testimony for the Rockefeller Commission. Olivier related that in tests where goats were shot in the head, the bodies of the goats fell to the ground in an almost random pattern. Baden overlooked that Dr. Olivier also related that when he'd fired upon human skulls, "The skulls that we shot invariably rolled away from the gun." This suggests that the back-and-to-the-left motion of a head would not be so random.)

Baden's Reign of Error 2004

On November 22, 2004, Dr. Baden made a brief appearance on the cable TV program Investigating History: The JFK Assassination. This afforded him just enough time to make two false statements.

When discussing the flaws in the autopsy, Baden claimed "The autopsy had not been done by pathologists who'd been trained in gunshot wounds. It was done by hospital pathologists." (This was not true. Dr. Finck was a forensic pathologist and an expert in gunshot wounds employed by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.)
Shortly thereafter, he added "There was the regular autopsy photographer there, taking pictures, and he was confronted, I believe, by an FBI person...They kicked him out. they opened up his camera and exposed all the film." (For this program, anyhow, Baden stopped short and did not make the related claim that the photos in the archives were taken instead by an FBI agent, and that that is why these photos lack clarity. But that's clearly where he was headed...)

Baden's Reign of Error 2003

In November 2003, Dr. Baden spoke at the Wecht Conference at Duquesne University. In attendance at this conference, and in his audience, were a number of his fellow forensic pathologists. There were also dozens of amateur experts on the Kennedy medical evidence. While one might think that Baden did a little studying before his appearance, in order to avoid embarrassment, one would be wrong. Here, as on HBO, he appears to be "winging" it.

When discussing the autopsy report, he stated: "Dr. Humes also took notes and he destroyed the notes before he wrote his report, which is one of the reasons his measurements were off." (As previously discussed, this is nonsense. Dr. Humes clarified this issue in 1996 by asserting he destroyed his notes only after writing his preliminary report. While Dr. Baden may wish to believe Humes burned his notes before copying them, as that offers him an explanation for what he believes to be Humes' mistaken impression of the entrance location on the the back of Kennedy's head, there is really nothing to support this. )
After telling the story of Floyd Riebe, the Navy cameraman whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service, Baden asserted: "Other, somebody else, took the photographs for the Secret Service, for the FBI, who had not taken such photos before. We have those photos. They are blurry. They are not the proper photos." (As previously discussed, the photographs were taken by Riebe's boss, John Stringer, the Navy's top autopsy photographer, who'd taken thousands of "such photos" before.)
Baden then discussed the autopsy photo of the empty cranium. He stated: "There is enough to show in the bullet wound of the inside of the cranial cavity an entrance perforation through bone in the back of the head..." He then asks them to put an x-ray on screen. He points out the level of the EOP entrance. He points out the level of the cowlick entrance. He then stated: "Clearly when we look into the cavity on the photograph, the internal beveling is here." A bit later, when he returned to a discussion of the entry wound described at autopsy, he re-affirmed his assertion that an entry wound is visible on the interior aspect of the "mystery photo." He said: "They described it as four inches too low, and it doesn't match the x-rays; it doesn't match the one interior view of the skull that's useful." Still later, when confronted on this point during a panel discussion, he claimed: "There was inward beveling that we could see in one of the photographs--in fact the one that you showed up there. When you look at it closely, we all 8 of us--I think Cyril agreed also--that there was inward beveling on the upper portion of the back of the skull. There was no occipital bone entrance." (This is quite interesting. While the pathology panel's report did indeed assert there was "a semicircular beveled defect in the posterior parietal area to the right of the midline, from which fracture lines radiate corresponding to the entrance perforation indicated in the skull" there is no exhibit in the report to demonstrate this entrance. Dr. Baden never mentioned it in his testimony. Nor did he show it in this presentation, or point it out to others when its existence was challenged. It seems clear from this that Baden--who would later admit he could make neither hide nor hair of the photo supposedly containing this entrance--never really saw this entrance, and was just pretending it existed, hoping no one would call him on his bluff. Far from Dr. Baden's assertion, moreover, that when one studies the photo, a beveled entrance on the "upper portion of the back of the skull" becomes apparent, most who've studied this photo have concluded there is no bone at all in the location of Baden's purported entrance.)
While trying to explain the autopsists' mistakes, Baden then cited the March 1978 testimony of Pierre Finck. He said: "Pierre Finck says to us, when he testified, 'For 20 years I've been looking at autopsy reports; I never did an autopsy in a gunshot wound case.'" (This is 100% wrong. When Dr. Finck testified before Baden's pathology panel on 3-11-78, Baden asked him if he'd ever personally performed an autopsy on a gunshot victim. Finck's job in 1963 was reviewing autopsies performed by others on behalf of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. Finck responded "Well, I was not always at the AFIP. I had duties as well where I performed autopsies of gunshot wounds before 1959.")
When discussing Dr. Humes' original impression of the back wound, he stated: "Humes looks in the back, sees the wound in the back, doesn't appreciate there's an exit wound in the front, so he says, and then later denies, but the Secret Service guys have it in writing while they're taking down every word he says, that uh, the bullet must have gone in, stopped, turned around, and came out the same entrance." (This passage includes a number of mistakes. First of all, no one took down Dr. Humes' every word at the autopsy. Second of all, it was FBI agents Sibert and O'Neil who wrote the report to which Dr. Baden refers. Third of all, there is nothing in their report indicating that Dr. Humes felt the bullet turned around inside Kennedy. It asserts instead that Humes felt "the bullet had worked its way back out of the point of entry" during external cardiac massage.)
When proposing that the single-bullet theory still works, even though his panel found that the back wound was below the throat wound, he described Kennedy's position at the time of the shot: "He's leaning forward enough to make a 20 degree angle or so." (As he said this he leaned far further forward than Kennedy appears to be leaning during the period he proposes Kennedy was shot.)
He then threw in "And remember he has Addison's disease--he's taking steroids for the Addison's disease. He has a little hump on his back from the fat that steroids cause." (This is a clear reference to Dr. Lattimer and his somewhat deranged suggestion that Kennedy was a hunchback, and that his hunch deflected the bullet down his neck. Dr. Baden doesn't seem to realize that this explanation was offered by Lattimer to explain why the back entrance appeared to be below the throat wound, when it was not. As Dr. Baden believes the back wound really was below the throat wound, and traveled upwards in the neck, the hump is completely irrelevant to his point. That he cannot see this only demonstrates his basic confusion.)
He then repeated another Lattimer myth already discussed. While discussing Connally's back wound, he claimed: "The bullet entered sideways, not straight on. It had to have hit something first--an intermediary target. The intermediary target was the President." (As previously discussed, Connally's doctor, Robert Shaw, insisted that the bullet was not traveling sideways upon contact with the skin, nor in its approach to his rib.)
Later, under questioning, when asked about the single-bullet theory, he asserted: "Mrs Connally states in her new book that Governor Connally heard the first shot--that's the one that we concluded hit the curbside--you can see that in the Zapruder film." (This is a pre-cursor to his latter statement on HBO. It is, of course, ludicrous. No one can see a bullet strike a curb in the Zapruder film. )
He then discussed the shot at frame 313 of the Zapruder film: "That bullet then strikes the President in the head, narrowly missing Mrs. Kennedy, and breaks apart when it strikes the strut in the windshield, and is found in the windshield." Later, when asked how he could explain the different behaviors of the two bullets--one that goes through both Kennedy and Connally, and is barely damaged, and another that seems to explode upon impact, he repeated: "The bullet striking President Kennedy in the back of the head, causes this tremendous explosion in the right side, when that bullet leaves...it then strikes the metal frame in the center of the windshield, and that's when it breaks apart. It doesn't break apart--and that's why both pieces are found right underneath the metal strut in the front of the vehicle." (This ignores that there were two impacts on the front the limo, one on the inside of the windshield and one on the inside of the windshield strut, and that this suggests the two pieces, one the nose of the bullet, and one the base of the bullet, exited separately from the skull. By asserting that the bullet passed through the skull intact, moreover, Baden was exposing himself as a single-assassin theorist unconcerned with the available evidence. The Warren Commission's wound ballistics expert Dr. Olivier, after all, had not only testified that the bones of the skull were "enough to deform the end of this bullet," but had presented bullet fragments recovered from the cotton waste behind his test skulls that were "quite similar" to the fragments found in the front seat of the limo. His report and subsequent statements, moreover, specified that the "nose of the bullet erupted on" the back of nine of the ten skulls fired upon. And he wasn't the only one to note this tendency. Dr. Lattimer, after performing his own tests of the ammunition, similarly reported, in a 1976 article in Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, that the bullets in his test firings "always broke up on striking the skull and then diverged, making a larger wound of exit." That the bullet broke up on impact with the skull, and not after its exit, is so clear, in fact, that Dr. Russell Fisher, Baden's mentor, had no problem saying as much in the Clark Panel's report, writing "The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones...")
While this marked the end of Baden's presentation, he received an opportunity to explain this last point further during a subsequent panel discussion. When asked why the bullets behaved so differently, Dr. Baden said of the bullet striking Kennedy's skull: "It doesn't fragment. It strikes the strut in the window, and the two portions..." Dr. Randy Robertson interrupted him here and pointed out the fragments in the brain, to which Baden replied "It's lead coming out from the back of the bullet, back of that bullet, and when it strikes the strut in the window is when it breaks apart. And the two portions are collected from the vehicle." Here Robertson again interjected that the bullet would have to have fragmented to leave that trail. Baden responded: "It squeezed out the back, what happens with full-metal jacket bullets." (Here, Baden's refusal to make sense is once again made clear. Somehow, he actually forgot that a circular fragment of the bullet striking Kennedy in the skull was determined by his panel to have come to rest on or in the back of Kennedy's skull. This fragment, moreover, was reportedly 6.5 mm wide--the width of the rifle's ammunition. This undoubtedly implies this fragment was a slice from the middle of the bullet. This makes his assertion that the fragments in the skull were nothing but lead that had squeezed out the back of the bullet bizarre, to say the least. It is also inconsistent with his testimony before congress, as he told them that the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment was a piece of metal that "rubbed off from the bullet on entering the skull and was deposited at the entrance site." Being rubbed off from a bullet is not the same as being squeezed out the back of a bullet. Not in this universe. That Baden's fellow pathologists on the HSCA panel did not share his strange assertion that all the lead in the skull, including the 6.5 mm fragment, was squeezed out of the back of the bullet was made more than clear, moreover, in the panel's final report, which claimed "The small missile fragment present at the margin of the entrance wound was probably a portion of the missile jacket...")


Baden's Reign of Error 1994

A January 16, 1994 column in the Schenectady New York Daily Gazette on the premiere of Dr. Baden's upcoming HBO program "Autopsy" offers a few choice comments by Baden on his experience with the HSCA. Amazingly, Baden claims that although numerous mistakes marred Kennedy's autopsy, "what we found was that the mistakes made in the Kennedy autopsy were ones that were commonly made in all autopsies in 1963." This is incredibly insulting. He can't possibly believe it was "common" for a team of doctors, including a forensic pathologist, to claim a bullet entered low on the skull, when it really entered 4 inches higher, and then repeat this claim TWICE after reviewing the autopsy photos and x-rays. He can't possibly believe, furthermore, that it was "common" for such an incorrect claim to be confirmed by a number of other witnesses to the autopsy, and for not one witness to recall seeing a bullet entrance where he claims it to have actually been located. It's also hard to believe Baden honestly believes it was "common" for pathologists to describe a wound as an exit in their autopsy report that they never even probed, or recognized as a bullet wound--as was done with Kennedy's throat wound. Perhaps then Dr. Baden was thinking of the autopsists' errors of omission--such as their not removing the neck organs, or their failure to weigh the brain before the supplemental autopsy--when he said the mistakes at Kennedy's autopsy were "common." If he was really trying to push that it was "common" for a team of doctors to misrepresent a wound's location to the extent he believes the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head was misrepresented, after all, one is left with the unsettling probability Dr. Baden was blowing smoke and trying to deceive the public.


Baden's Reign of Error 1989

In his first book, Unnatural Death, published 1989, Dr. Baden presented a chapter on the Kennedy assassination. One might think that Dr. Baden, concerned about his reputation, would be sure to make his book as accurate as possible, and review the reports and findings of the House Select Committee before committing his thoughts for posterity. But one would be wrong. Among Baden’s claims:

Those who believe the back-and-to-the-left movement of Kennedy's head after frame 313 indicates the shot came from the front are mistaken because "They left out of their calculations the acceleration of the car Kennedy was riding in. Beyond that, the body simply does not react that way. The force of the bullet would just as likely cause Kennedy's head to move forward as backward. It's not predictable." (A quick look at the Zapruder and Nix films shows that the acceleration of the limousine came after the back-and-to the-left movement of the President’s head. This is not just the opinion of conspiracy theorists. Dr. John Lattimer noted as much in his 1976 article in Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics. In addition, Baden's claim that the movement of a head is unpredictable is either something he just made up because it sounded good...or was a misrepresentation of Dr. Olivier's testimony for the Rockefeller Commission, in which he claimed that the direction in which a goat's body fell after being shot in the head is unpredictable.)
"No forensic pathologist has ever examined the body of the President." (One of the three doctors performing Kennedy's autopsy, Colonel Pierre Finck, was a licensed forensic pathologist on November 22, 1963.)
"Colonel Finck, it turned out, had never done an autopsy involving a gunshot wound, either." (As previously discussed, Dr. Finck testified about his prior experience on 3-11-78. As a direct response to a question from Dr. Baden, Finck said he'd performed autopsies on gunshot wound victims prior to 1959. Apparently, Dr. Baden didn't care for his answer.)
"The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds." (As previously discussed, John Stringer, the actual photographer, was a civilian working for the Navy, and had been Bethesda Naval Hospital’s chief autopsy photographer for years. His work had been featured in textbooks.)
"The Kennedy head bullet was found on the floor of Kennedy's car in front. It had struck the windshield strut and broken in two." (Since bullet fragments are smaller and lose their energy much more rapidly than intact bullets, it seems doubtful that two fragments of a bullet breaking up upon entrance on the back of the skull would traverse the skull and exit with the force necessary to crack a windshield and dent a windshield strut. This is in keeping, moreover, with the report of Baden's pathology panel, which observed that the large defect apparent at the supposed exit suggested the exit of a fragment the combined size of the recovered fragments. So it's not exactly surprising that Baden would try and claim the bullet exited intact and broke up after striking the windshield strut. The problem, as discussed above, is that HE SHOULD KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE. Not only does he overlook that a fragment struck and cracked the windshield in addition to the strut, but he ignores that the two fragments found in the front seat were the nose and base of the bullet, and that they comprised only about half of the bullet. As much of the middle of this bullet was supposedly left in the skull, including the “slice” of bullet seen on the x-rays and interpreted by Baden and his panel to be on the back of the head by the bullet's entrance, it follows then like night from day that these fragments exited separately and did not break in two upon impact with the windshield strut. Baden's pretending that it did and that the "slice" just fell out the back of the bullet and clung to the back of the skull is bizarre beyond belief.)
Dr. Humes burned his notes on November 23, the day after the shooting, before talking to Dr. Perry and finding out the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound, and before starting work on the autopsy report. (This may be Baden's most egregious "mistake." Its existence reveals that as early as 1989 he was looking for ways to explain to his readers how Humes could be so mistaken about the location of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head--and that he was willing to make stuff up to do this. There is simply no evidence supporting Baden's version of these events. Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he called Dr. Perry on the morning of the 23rd, began working on the autopsy report later that evening, and burned his notes the next day. He repeated this testimony, moreover, to Baden himself, when meeting with members of Baden's panel on 9-16-77. Shame, shame, shame.)
The Cortisone that Kennedy was taking for his Addison’s disease "causes odd fat deposits--an upper back hump, full cheeks. Kennedy had them both, but Addison's disease is not mentioned in the autopsy report." (As discussed, the "back hump" or "hunchback" story is a disgusting fairy tale started by Dr. Lattimer to help explain how a descending bullet could enter Kennedy’s shirt and jacket inches below his shirt collar and still exit from his throat.)
“Perhaps the most egregious error was the four-inch miscalculation. The head is only five inches long from crown to neck, but Humes was confused by a little piece of brain tissue that had adhered to the scalp. He placed the head wound four inches lower than it actually was, near the neck instead of the cowlick.” (This, of course, is nonsense. Baden must have known that Dr.s Humes and Boswell didn't just observe this wound on the scalp, but on the skull after the scalp had been peeled back. He also would have to have known their observation was confirmed by Dr. Pierre Finck, arriving after the beginning of the autopsy. He also should have known their "too low" location was confirmed by several other witnesses to the autopsy, including autopsy photographer John Stringer. His attempt, then, to make this "egregious error" appear to be the error of one man, and not many, and his failure to tell his readers that these witnesses verified this location numerous times, can only be viewed as deceptive.)
"For the head wound, we enhanced the x-rays and saw the entrance perforation on top of the cowlick." (This would be news to the HSCA's radiology consultants, Dr.s McDonnell and Davis. Neither of them noted such an entrance in their reports. While they both concluded there was an entrance in this location, they did so based upon their observation of fractures and fragments in the area, NOT because they saw an entrance perforation. This distinction is an important one that Baden should not have forgotten.)
That when inspecting the photos of the head wound "Pictures of the wound yielded more when viewed through a stereopticon. In three dimensions they showed the oblique lines (beveling) on the bone in the back of the skull that an entering bullet makes." (As discussed, this was never mentioned in Baden's testimony before the HSCA. It was mentioned but not demonstrated in his panel's report. Despite plentiful opportunities, no one has demonstrated it in all the years since.)
"The trace metal content in the bullet found on the stretcher and the fragment from Connally's wrist match perfectly. It was a copper-jacketed military bullet with a core of 99 percent lead and insignificant amounts of strontium, arsenic, nickel, platinum, and silver. As small as they are, these traces are like fingerprints." (The magic bullet and the wrist fragment failed to match on copper, and barely matched on antimony. It also matched on silver, as did half the bullets tested. Protocols of the time dictated that, if a sample failed to match on one of these three, the samples did not match. Therefore there was no match, let alone a perfect match. None of the other elements listed by Baden were even tested.)
That when he inspected Governor Connally's back wound he saw "a two-inch long sideways entrance on his back. He had not been shot by a second shooter but by the same flattened bullet that went through Kennedy." (Dr. Baden wrote a memo on this inspection for the HSCA. At that time he reported Connally's scar as 1 1/8 inches long. His description of CE 399 as "flattened" is another exaggeration. Only the base of the bullet was slightly flattened.)

As you can see, this trip down the lane of Baden's memory reveals that, over time, he's latched onto a lot of myths, and forgotten a lot of evidence. He repeats the same old canards over and over. "So what?" you might say. "By 2008 Baden was an old man. By 1989, when Unnatural Death was published, he'd already been away from the case for ten years. Of course, he made some mistakes. What does that have to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of his initial investigation for the HSCA?" Well, what if the evidence suggests that Baden didn't forget all that much about the case, and that the real problem is that he never KNEW that much about the case? That's right. Beyond his testifying with his autopsy photo upside down, beyond his admitting to researchers that he never could make sense of the "mystery photo," there's additional evidence that he was simply ignorant of the basic facts he was charged with investigating.

Baden's Reign of Error 1980

In January 2008, on the JFK Lancer website, researcher Randy Owen posted a transcript of a seminar conducted by Dr. Baden in Toronto, Ontario, in November, 1980. November 1980 was but 2 years after Dr. Baden testified before the HSCA, and but a year and some months after the printing of his panel's report. And yet...he was already making tremendous mistakes.

When discussing Abraham Zapruder and his film, he stated: "He's retired on the proceeds of the few seconds of film taking." (While Zapruder made a nice sum from the selling of his film to Time/Life, he was already a successful businessman before selling his film. Furthermore, he'd been dead since 1970. This was the kind of fact that was common knowledge to those with a genuine interest in the case.)
When discussing the President's movements after the head shot, he stated "Interestingly, the Secret Service people indicate that immediately, as soon as they heard the first shot, they speeded up the car. This became a problem because in the whole analysis, it did appear that if he did speed up his car immediately, it had significance." (The limo's driver never said he sped up after the first shot. He said he looked back after what he thought was the second shot. The films reveal that the car slowed as he looked back, and only accelerated after Kennedy had been hit by the head shot.)
Baden then attacked the lack of specificity in the autopsy report, noting: "The doctors who attended the President made a note that 'the injuries to the skull and brain are so complex that they defy description and we will rely on photographs taken to better describe the injury.'" (The statement to which he refers makes NO mention of the brain at all. It reads "The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Could Baden really have forgotten that the doctors, while failing to section the brain and inspect the missile paths within the brain, nevertheless described in detail the apparent damage to the surface of the brain in their Supplemental Autopsy Report of 12-6-63? If not, was it a coincidence that Baden failed to acknowledge that the damage described in this report was inconsistent with his re-interpretation of the President's wounds?)
He then explained why the doctors' reliance on the photographs made his job so much harder. He claimed: "It turns out the photographs taken were out of focus and are of little value because they were not done by medical photographers but by government officials who had never taken autopsy photographs before." (Holy smokes! The autopsy photographer was, according to Baden, a "government official" in 1980, an FBI photographer in 1989, "somebody else" in 2003, and a Secret Service photographer in 2008. What will he be in 10 more years, an IRS agent performing an audit? Baden's inability to grasp that the pictures were taken by John Stringer, the Navy's top autopsy photographer in 1963 and a man interviewed for the HSCA on August 17, 1977 by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy, Baden's contact with the committee, demonstrates beyond any doubt that he never quite got a handle on the evidence he was tasked with studying.)
Baden then explained that it's not a doctors' job to decide who did it. He then told the audience who did it, injecting: "Oswald had the gun, it was his, there were his fingerprints on it, he pulled the trigger." (Of course, there'd been but one identifiable print found on the rifle--Oswald's palm print--and it was found on the barrel of the rifle, in a part that was only exposed when the rifle was disassembled. Furthermore, the only man to see this print on the rifle, Dallas detective J.C. Day, felt sure that this print was an old print. Thus, there was no scientific evidence that Oswald had "pulled the trigger".)
Baden finally ended his presentation by pointing out the convergence of factors that allowed the brain to disappear before it could be studied. Not surprisingly, he found a way to blame it on the Kennedy family. He asserted "the x-rays, the specimens, all remained in custody of the Kennedy family. Like somebody is shot in Toronto or New York and the next of kin, who may be the perpetrator, says 'I want my pathologist to come in and do the autopsy. You take the pictures but give me the pictures so I can hold onto them.' And they kept the whole thing. This was done with good intent and all that..." (He completely left out, if he even knew, that the autopsy materials were not given to the Kennedy family until 1965, long after the Warren Commission had completed its investigation. He also omitted that the Johnson Administration, when it asked for the return of the materials in 1966, only asked for the autopsy photos and x-rays, and never requested the return of the brain for study.)

From all these mistakes it seems clear that Baden was never truly an expert on the case. Not even close.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 7/23/2012 8:40 AM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:02:09 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> Does anybody have a link to that video of Michael Baden before the
>> HSCA?
>>
>> The one where he supposedly showed the F8 photo upside down (which in
>> fact is untrue).
>>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I've been gone for a few days, but am glad to see that at least one person on this newsgroup--John F--can watch Baden's testimony, and see what he did.
>
> He pointed to intact bone above and to the right of the beveled bone on the autopsy photo, and said it was the bone above and to the right of the black mark representing the beveled exit on the drawing of Kennedy. If he'd placed the autopsy photo on the stand to represent Stringer's view from the top of the table, as John M chooses to believe, the bone to the right of the beveled exit on the autopsy photo would correspond to bone BELOW the beveled exit on the drawing. This is shown here:
>

Oh please, Pat. John M does not really believe that. He is not THAT stupid.

> In his first book, Unnatural Death, published 1989, Dr. Baden presented a chapter on the Kennedy assassination. One might think that Dr. Baden, concerned about his reputation, would be sure to make his book as accurate as possible, and review the reports and findings of the House Select Committee before committing his thoughts for posterity. But one would be wrong. Among Baden�s claims:
>
> Those who believe the back-and-to-the-left movement of Kennedy's head after frame 313 indicates the shot came from the front are mistaken because "They left out of their calculations the acceleration of the car Kennedy was riding in. Beyond that, the body simply does not react that way. The force of the bullet would just as likely cause Kennedy's head to move forward as backward. It's not predictable." (A quick look at the Zapruder and Nix films shows that the acceleration of the limousine came after the back-and-to the-left movement of the President�s head. This is not just the opinion of conspiracy theorists. Dr. John Lattimer noted as much in his 1976 article in Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics. In addition, Baden's claim that the movement of a head is unpredictable is either something he just made up because it sounded good...or was a misrepresentation of Dr. Olivier's testimony for the Rockefeller Commission, in which he claimed that the direction in which a go

at's bo
dy fell after being shot in the head is unpredictable.)
> "No forensic pathologist has ever examined the body of the President." (One of the three doctors performing Kennedy's autopsy, Colonel Pierre Finck, was a licensed forensic pathologist on November 22, 1963.)
> "Colonel Finck, it turned out, had never done an autopsy involving a gunshot wound, either." (As previously discussed, Dr. Finck testified about his prior experience on 3-11-78. As a direct response to a question from Dr. Baden, Finck said he'd performed autopsies on gunshot wound victims prior to 1959. Apparently, Dr. Baden didn't care for his answer.)

> "The FBI photographer, who had clearance, was in the same quandary as Humes. He had never taken autopsy pictures before and was untrained in photographing gunshot wounds." (As previously discussed, John Stringer, the actual photographer, was a civilian working for the Navy, and had been Bethesda Naval Hospital�s chief autopsy photographer for years. His work had been featured in textbooks.)

> "The Kennedy head bullet was found on the floor of Kennedy's car in front. It had struck the windshield strut and broken in two." (Since bullet fragments are smaller and lose their energy much more rapidly than intact bullets, it seems doubtful that two fragments of a bullet breaking up upon entrance on the back of the skull would traverse the skull and exit with the force necessary to crack a windshield and dent a windshield strut. This is in keeping, moreover, with the report of Baden's pathology panel, which observed that the large defect apparent at the supposed exit suggested the exit of a fragment the combined size of the recovered fragments. So it's not exactly surprising that Baden would try and claim the bullet exited intact and broke up after striking the windshield strut. The problem, as discussed above, is that HE SHOULD KNOW THIS ISN'T TRUE. Not only does he overlook that a fragment struck and cracked the windshield in addition to the strut, but he ignores
that t

he two fragments found in the front seat were the nose and base of the bullet, and that they comprised only about half of the bullet. As much of the middle of this bullet was supposedly left in the skull, including the �slice� of bullet seen on the x-rays and interpreted by Baden and his panel to be on the back of the head by the bullet's entrance, it follows then like night from day that these fragments exited separately and did not break in two upon impact with the windshield strut. Baden's pretending that it did and that the "slice" just fell out the back of the bullet and clung to the back of the skull is bizarre beyond belief.)

> Dr. Humes burned his notes on November 23, the day after the shooting, before talking to Dr. Perry and finding out the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound, and before starting work on the autopsy report. (This may be Baden's most egregious "mistake." Its existence reveals that as early as 1989 he was looking for ways to explain to his readers how Humes could be so mistaken about the location of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head--and that he was willing to make stuff up to do this. There is simply no evidence supporting Baden's version of these events. Humes testified before the Warren Commission that he called Dr. Perry on the morning of the 23rd, began working on the autopsy report later that evening, and burned his notes the next day. He repeated this testimony, moreover, to Baden himself, when meeting with members of Baden's panel on 9-16-77. Shame, shame, shame.)

> The Cortisone that Kennedy was taking for his Addison�s disease "causes odd fat deposits--an upper back hump, full cheeks. Kennedy had them both, but Addison's disease is not mentioned in the autopsy report." (As discussed, the "back hump" or "hunchback" story is a disgusting fairy tale started by Dr. Lattimer to help explain how a descending bullet could enter Kennedy�s shirt and jacket inches below his shirt collar and still exit from his throat.)
> �Perhaps the most egregious error was the four-inch miscalculation. The head is only five inches long from crown to neck, but Humes was confused by a little piece of brain tissue that had adhered to the scalp. He placed the head wound four inches lower than it actually was, near the neck instead of the cowlick.� (This, of course, is nonsense. Baden must have known that Dr.s Humes and Boswell didn't just observe this wound on the scalp, but on the skull after the scalp had been peeled back. He also would have to have known their observation was confirmed by Dr. Pierre Finck, arriving after the beginning of the autopsy. He also should have known their "too low" location was confirmed by several other witnesses to the autopsy, including autopsy photographer John Stringer. His attempt, then, to make this "egregious error" appear to be the error of one man, and not many, and his failure to tell his readers that these witnesses verified this location numerous times, can only

be vie
wed as deceptive.)
> "For the head wound, we enhanced the x-rays and saw the entrance perforation on top of the cowlick." (This would be news to the HSCA's radiology consultants, Dr.s McDonnell and Davis. Neither of them noted such an entrance in their reports. While they both concluded there was an entrance in this location, they did so based upon their observation of fractures and fragments in the area, NOT because they saw an entrance perforation. This distinction is an important one that Baden should not have forgotten.)
> That when inspecting the photos of the head wound "Pictures of the wound yielded more when viewed through a stereopticon. In three dimensions they showed the oblique lines (beveling) on the bone in the back of the skull that an entering bullet makes." (As discussed, this was never mentioned in Baden's testimony before the HSCA. It was mentioned but not demonstrated in his panel's report. Despite plentiful opportunities, no one has demonstrated it in all the years since.)
> "The trace metal content in the bullet found on the stretcher and the fragment from Connally's wrist match perfectly. It was a copper-jacketed military bullet with a core of 99 percent lead and insignificant amounts of strontium, arsenic, nickel, platinum, and silver. As small as they are, these traces are like fingerprints." (The magic bullet and the wrist fragment failed to match on copper, and barely matched on antimony. It also matched on silver, as did half the bullets tested. Protocols of the time dictated that, if a sample failed to match on one of these three, the samples did not match. Therefore there was no match, let alone a perfect match. None of the other elements listed by Baden were even tested.)
> That when he inspected Governor Connally's back wound he saw "a two-inch long sideways entrance on his back. He had not been shot by a second shooter but by the same flattened bullet that went through Kennedy." (Dr. Baden wrote a memo on this inspection for the HSCA. At that time he reported Connally's scar as 1 1/8 inches long. His description of CE 399 as "flattened" is another exaggeration. Only the base of the bullet was slightly flattened.)
>
> As you can see, this trip down the lane of Baden's memory reveals that, over time, he's latched onto a lot of myths, and forgotten a lot of evidence. He repeats the same old canards over and over. "So what?" you might say. "By 2008 Baden was an old man. By 1989, when Unnatural Death was published, he'd already been away from the case for ten years. Of course, he made some mistakes. What does that have to do with the accuracy or inaccuracy of his initial investigation for the HSCA?" Well, what if the evidence suggests that Baden didn't forget all that much about the case, and that the real problem is that he never KNEW that much about the case? That's right. Beyond his testifying with his autopsy photo upside down, beyond his admitting to researchers that he never could make sense of the "mystery photo," there's additional evidence that he was simply ignorant of the basic facts he was charged with investigating.
>
> Baden's Reign of Error 1980
>
> In January 2008, on the JFK Lancer website, researcher Randy Owen posted a transcript of a seminar conducted by Dr. Baden in Toronto, Ontario, in November, 1980. November 1980 was but 2 years after Dr. Baden testified before the HSCA, and but a year and some months after the printing of his panel's report. And yet...he was already making tremendous mistakes.
>
> When discussing Abraham Zapruder and his film, he stated: "He's retired on the proceeds of the few seconds of film taking." (While Zapruder made a nice sum from the selling of his film to Time/Life, he was already a successful businessman before selling his film. Furthermore, he'd been dead since 1970. This was the kind of fact that was common knowledge to those with a genuine interest in the case.)
> When discussing the President's movements after the head shot, he stated "Interestingly, the Secret Service people indicate that immediately, as soon as they heard the first shot, they speeded up the car. This became a problem because in the whole analysis, it did appear that if he did speed up his car immediately, it had significance." (The limo's driver never said he sped up after the first shot. He said he looked back after what he thought was the second shot. The films reveal that the car slowed as he looked back, and only accelerated after Kennedy had been hit by the head shot.)
> Baden then attacked the lack of specificity in the autopsy report, noting: "The doctors who attended the President made a note that 'the injuries to the skull and brain are so complex that they defy description and we will rely on photographs taken to better describe the injury.'" (The statement to which he refers makes NO mention of the brain at all. It reads "The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Could Baden really have forgotten that the doctors, while failing to section the brain and inspect the missile paths within the brain, nevertheless described in detail the apparent damage to the surface of the brain in their Supplemental Autopsy Report of 12-6-63? If not, was it a coincidence that Baden failed to acknowledge that the damage described in this report was inconsistent with his re-interpretation of the President's wo
unds?)
> He then explained why the doctors' reliance on the photographs made his job so much harder. He claimed: "It turns out the photographs taken were out of focus and are of little value because they were not done by medical photographers but by government officials who had never taken autopsy photographs before." (Holy smokes! The autopsy photographer was, according to Baden, a "government official" in 1980, an FBI photographer in 1989, "somebody else" in 2003, and a Secret Service photographer in 2008. What will he be in 10 more years, an IRS agent performing an audit? Baden's inability to grasp that the pictures were taken by John Stringer, the Navy's top autopsy photographer in 1963 and a man interviewed for the HSCA on August 17, 1977 by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy, Baden's contact with the committee, demonstrates beyond any doubt that he never quite got a handle on the evidence he was tasked with studying.)
> Baden then explained that it's not a doctors' job to decide who did it. He then told the audience who did it, injecting: "Oswald had the gun, it was his, there were his fingerprints on it, he pulled the trigger." (Of course, there'd been but one identifiable print found on the rifle--Oswald's palm print--and it was found on the barrel of the rifle, in a part that was only exposed when the rifle was disassembled. Furthermore, the only man to see this print on the rifle, Dallas detective J.C. Day, felt sure that this print was an old print. Thus, there was no scientific evidence that Oswald had "pulled the trigger".)
> Baden finally ended his presentation by pointing out the convergence of factors that allowed the brain to disappear before it could be studied. Not surprisingly, he found a way to blame it on the Kennedy family. He asserted "the x-rays, the specimens, all remained in custody of the Kennedy family. Like somebody is shot in Toronto or New York and the next of kin, who may be the perpetrator, says 'I want my pathologist to come in and do the autopsy. You take the pictures but give me the pictures so I can hold onto them.' And they kept the whole thing. This was done with good intent and all that..." (He completely left out, if he even knew, that the autopsy materials were not given to the Kennedy family until 1965, long after the Warren Commission had completed its investigation. He also omitted that the Johnson Administration, when it asked for the return of the materials in 1966, only asked for the autopsy photos and x-rays, and never requested the return of the brain f
or stud
y.)
>
> From all these mistakes it seems clear that Baden was never truly an expert on the case. Not even close.
>

<CR><LF>

If you could comply with UseNet stardards for line length I might reply.
Your messages are a mess.
Like you just cut and paste everything from your Web site.