I think it very well may be possible that all recollections are correct, all of the wounds were probed in different ways and the witnesses saw different parts of this procedure happening. Surely you're not saying that no probe was involved at all? Even Finck got around to admitting that to the ARRB, but said he didn't remember how it was used.
It was pointed out to you by another poster that this 'it may well be possible' approach is a non-starter. Remember, it may well be possible that Oswald shot JFK alone and unaided. Surely you're not saying that Oswald couldn't have shot and killed JFK alone. All it would take was a decent rifle from a tall building and a relatively good shot.
And since all the evidence points to Oswald doing exactly that, the rest is just you pulling 33-year-after-the-fact recollections out of context to pretend they agree with each other. We know they are not all possibly true... for example, Knudsen recalls seeing photos of a probe in JFK, while John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, insists no such photos were taken at any time (and later in the same interview, Stringer disavows what he supposedly told Lifton more than two decades earlier. See here (numbered page 81):
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798&search=probe#relPageId=18&tab=page ).
So, on that basis alone, one of these two men is certainly having a failure of memory. Pretending all these recollections are equally true is a pretense only, as they contradict each other. Some say there was no probe, others say it was probed with a finger, others insist a metal rod was used, some say it was a metal rod inserted in the back wound and it went nowhere, another says it was inserted in the front, others say the probe went all the way through... you appear not to understand how memory can be affected by what one has read or heard, or even how the question is worded.
For example, shown a video of a car hitting a stop sign, two weeks later (only TWO WEEKS LATER) the witnesses were asked how fast the car was travelling when it hit the sign. Those who were asked a non-loaded question like "How fast was the car travelling when it struck the sign?" guessed a lower MPH than those who were asked a loaded question like "How fast was the car travelling when it smashed into the sign?" Changing the verb changed the estimate.
Now go back and review the loaded questions the witnesses were asked about a probe in the ARRB interviews.
Pretending they saw different parts of the autopsy - while none of them say they were going in and out of the autopsy room like they were on a carousel at a Disney exhibition - is equally pretense on your part. Face it, their recollections do contradict each other, and you cannot salvage them by imagining where they might all be true in some twilight-zone type scenario where each saw a different autopsy or a different part of the same autopsy.
Your suggestion reminds me of Mark Lane's treatment of the Tippit witnesses. He points out - rightly - in RUSH TO JUDGMENT that most of the witnesses described the jacket the gunman was wearing in very different terms. Some said it was tan, some said it was black, some grey, one said light blue. He takes his argument no further, which is deliberately deceptive on his part. He avoids the next step entirely, which is to draw a reasonable conclusion about what this means, and what we should conclude from these discrepancies in this particular instance, and discrepancies between witnesses in general.
What's the reasonable conclusion here, regarding the Tippit shooting and the differing descriptions of the jacket worn by the gunman?
(a) The Tippit shooting and its aftermath was staged multiple times, with the gunman changing his jacket for each staging, and each witness saw a different shooting
(b) Tippit was shot by multiple gunmen each wearing different jackets, and each witness for some reason saw only one gunman
(c) Witnesses are fallible, and sometimes get stuff wrong, as they are relying on memory to describe what they saw previously (and in some of their statements, the witness was relying on memory only a couple of hours old, at most).
Choose one.
Now compare how the Tippit witnesses got pertinent details wrong within hours of the shooting with your insistence that it's quite possible 14- or 33-years-after-the-fact, that all the HSCA and ARRB witnesses got everything perfectly right.
Your argument here is rightly judged an absurdity.
Trying to reconcile recollections from a decade or more after the fact isn't going to ever be the right approach. But that's the approach you're pushing here.
I trust you understand better why you're not making any traction here.
Hank
