I would further note that Hoover's testimony was in the context of expanding on his remark that the doctors at Parkland had originally thought the throat wound was a frontal wound. He wasn't purporting to discuss the head wound per se. I see absolutely no significance to the alteration of his testimony. As previously noted, deponents are always afforded an opportunity to make changes to the transcript. Given all the medical evidence regarding the head wound, I see absolutely no significance to a clarification from "the back of the skull" to the more accurate "portions of the skull." The notion that the change was made because "OH, MY GOD, THE DODDERING OLD DIRECTOR LET THE TRUTH SLIP!!!" is just conspiracy nonsense of the first magnitude.
Sibert and O'Neill were both clear that the "surgery to the head area" in their memorandum was simply reporting a remark Humes had made while examining the body. They both thought he might have made the remark because a large piece of skull was obviously missing. O'Neill was a firm WC/LN supporter. While Sibert seems to have been more CT-oriented, I just read both of their ARRB testimonies and didn't see anything that would have really startled the WC even though Horne was Rather Obvious - to put it mildly - in his effort to get Sibert to say what he wanted him to say.
This is all just all-too-typical CT grasping at straws. "OH, MY GOD, THEY ALTERED HOOVER'S TESTIMONY!!!" Big yawn.
