John Canal wrote:
> In article <08c53457-94be-48e9-b9c0-27ae3bb25...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein says...
>>>>> "What kind of explanation do you think the "NO-Large-right-rear-BOH-wound"
>>>>> believers have for the fact that Humes testified that, at the time he saw brain
>>>>> tissue exuding out the large wound (that was chiefly parietal but extended
>>>>> somewhat into the temporal and occipital), he also saw part of a severely
>>>>> lacerated cerebellum (you know--that part of the brain that sits inside the
>>>>> skull just below the EOP)?" <<<

>> I've come to the conclusion that by far THE BEST EVIDENCE that exists
>> with respect to the "BOH" debate is this X-ray of President Kennedy's
>> head (IMHO):

>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...

>> In this case, a picture really does speak a thousand words. And in
>> this case, it's a verified-by-the-HSCA-as-authentic-and-"unaltered"
>> picture that is saying (very loudly and very clearly) the following
>> fact:

>> THERE WAS NO LARGE HOLE IN THE RIGHT-REAR PORTION OF JFK'S SKULL.
>> PERIOD! It just simply is not there.

> So, you evidently think Humes was lying, or didn't realize there was really no
> brain matter, much less a part of the cerebellum, exuding from any wound that
> extended into the occipital? That's it? He was wrong?

> Did you ever consider the possibility that Boswell may have "smoothed" loose
> rear skull pieces back into place before the X-rays? No, of course not....even
> though he said he replaced pieces of rear kull before the X-rays. If the skull
> pieces were still adhrered to the scalp (just out of position) that would have
> been pretty easy to do, IMHO.

> Sad.

> John Canal