(PART 413)


When Humes said he saw that part of the cerebellum was severely lacerated, do you think he was: A) lying, B) hallucinating, or C) misspeaking, i.e. he meant to say a severely lacerated ear, etc.?


I'll pick C.

Since you love Dr. Boswell so much, I'll ask you a question -- was
Boswell lying when he said this to the ARRB in 1996?:

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

BOSWELL -- "Yes."


David, suggest you read RH2 when it comes out.


Why on this EARTH would Vince want to come out with a "sequel"
volume called "Reclaiming History 2"?

Such a volume being released with the moniker "Reclaiming History 2"
is utterly stupid, IMO. It would be like advertising that it was VB's
feeling that the first massive 2,800-page book was a failure (at least
to a large degree), requiring a second "RH" to be written and marketed
to replace the first. Such a "sequel" would be totally ridiculous and

If there is a "re-release" of "RH" (not a "sequel", just a re-print
version of the original 2007 book and CD-ROM), a few of the small
number of errors and typos and inconsistencies might be corrected. In
fact, I've volunteered my services to Vince (through his secretary,
Rosemary Newton) in helping to proofread the entire book and CD, in
order to eliminate the minor mistakes that do exist in "RH" in case
just such a re-release version of the book does come to pass in the

And Vince should eliminate the horrid contradiction that appears on
pages 423 and 424 for starters. That's by far the biggest error/
mistake in the whole book (IMO).

But correcting such errors (mostly typos and incorrect dates, etc.)
wouldn't require slapping a whole new sequel-like title on the book.
I'm pretty sure that re-prints of books are accomplished all the time
in such a manner, where small errors are corrected, but the book title
remains exactly the same.

Did you have a second printing of your 2000 book, "Silencing The Lone
Assassin", John C.? If so, were you allowed to correct any minor errors
that might have slipped through the cracks in the First Edition?

Anyway, Vince B. certainly doesn't need to change a thing that he
wrote in "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the subject of JFK's
head wounds and the specific locations of those wounds. Vince has it
covered nicely in "RH", including ample discussion about the 4-inch
discrepancy that exists with respect to the precise location on the
back of JFK's head where Oswald's bullet entered.

That topic is thrashed out in a good deal of detail in "RH", with
Vince coming to the only reasonable and logical conclusion about the
true location of that entry wound -- i.e., the wound was located near
the cowlick area of President Kennedy's head.

Another question for John Canal: If the red spot near the cowlick
isn't the wound of entrance in this picture below, then why does
photographer John Stringer seemingly focus in on and CENTER his camera
on that red spot in the middle of this picture? If the red spot isn't
the thing being focused on the most by Stringer here, then WHAT WAS
Stringer focusing on the most in this photo? He surely wasn't focusing
on the white splotch near the BOTTOM of the picture, was he John?:

David Von Pein
January 5, 2009