www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ace67...

Answer: Never.

They always said the wound was chiefly "parietal", and was located in
the RIGHT-FRONTAL part of the head:

      "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
RIGHT SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967
[Emphasis is DVP's]

And when viewed and examined IN TANDEM and in their totality, this
combination of things below is telling everyone with some common sense
(and at least one functioning eyeball) that there was not--and, in
fact, COULD NOT have been--a large hole in the back of President
Kennedy's head (in BOTH the SCALP and SKULL of Kennedy's head) after
he was shot in the head from behind by Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano bullet:

1.) This autopsy X-ray -- which certainly does not do the "BOH" crowd
any favors whatsoever....because it couldn't be more obvious, from
this X-ray picture alone, that JFK did not have any kind of a large
hole in the BACK of his head in the occipital region:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011a.+JFK+HEAD+X-RAY?g...

2.) This autopsy photograph -- which does not do the "BOH" crowd any
favors either. And the SCALP of the President's head is COMPLETELY
INTACT in this picture, too. Not a sign of damage. Nothing. And not a
sign of any stitches or "repair" work having been done to the rear
scalp of JFK can be detected either (but John Canal apparently can see
the repairs; but he's the only person on the planet who can,
evidently):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...

And since it couldn't be more obvious from the above photo of the back
of President Kennedy's head that the SCALP in the ENTIRE BACK of his
head was completely intact and totally undamaged....then the next
logical question to ask, of course, is -- How in the world would it
have been physically POSSIBLE for anyone at Parkland Hospital to have
seen a great-big, gaping hole in the back part of JFK's head if his
scalp looked like this (in two different photographs) during his
autopsy on the night of 11/22/63?:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/011.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/010.+JFK+AUTOPSY+PHOTO...

Answer to that last question: It's not possible.

3.) The autopsy report, which doesn't help out the "BOH" theorists
very much either (unless the word "somewhat" can somehow be looked
upon by some theorists to mean that a huge hole was present ONLY in
the VERY BACK PART of Kennedy's head, which is the only alternative
the BOH theorists have with respect to this "somewhat" language that
appears in the autopsy report; because it couldn't be more obvious
that the report is describing a wound that was located on the RIGHT
SIDE of JFK's head, and not in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of the head):

      "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

4.) The three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), who all
signed the autopsy report which contained the words I just used in #3
above.

Not ONCE did any of the three autopsy surgeons talk about there being
a large gaping hole in the BACK of John F. Kennedy's head. Never. And
that's because: No such gaping "BOH" wound ever existed in the first
place.

So, naturally, the doctors never talked about a wound of "fantasy"
that was never present in President Kennedy's head to begin with.

A Humes Replay:

      "The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the FRONT and
RIGHT SIDE of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967
[Emphasis is DVP's]

5.) The Zapruder Film -- which does not support any kind of a "BOH
wound" scenario at all, as we can easily see in digital clarity via
the following stabilized version of the film (which is not playing in
real time; it's been slowed down just a tad; but that really doesn't
matter here):

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/THE+ZAPRUDER+FILM+(STA...

Add up #1 through #5 above. What do you get?

Do those things add up to the "BOH wound" witnesses being correct?

Or do they add up to the logical conclusion (via a combination of
photographs, X-rays, the Zapruder Film, the official autopsy report,
and the words of the autopsists) that President Kennedy did not have a
large hole in the back part of his head?

Amazingly, instead of opting for the latter choice, lone-assassin
believer John Canal has decided to choose the first answer shown
above.

And John will choose that first answer even though the second answer
is a conclusion that is firmly anchored by the weight of much better
and definitive evidence than the eyewitnesses who viewed JFK's head
wounds.

Go figure John Canal's logic on this matter.

I can't.

David Von Pein
November 15, 2008

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

=============================================

RELATED "BOH" STUFF:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/42a0bbac40f320f5
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d442d30af4fabdf3
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a93fbd3eceee9809
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd386954cebad312