Post by Rob Caprio on Jan 20, 2019 11:22:39 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
www.allmystery.de/i/t7884734c0_neck_transit_lateral_02.jpg
Let’s first look at Commander James Humes’ testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) regarding the neck probe of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?
Humes. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages.
There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
Humes. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
If Humes did NOT even know how to probe a tract of a wound then he should definitely NOT been in charge of this autopsy. What does he mean by “There wouldn’t be any track that I could put a probe through…” if JFK was shot in the neck the way the Warren Commission (WC) claimed? What does he mean by “abortive efforts”? Is this because there was NO wound in the BACK OF THE NECK as claimed by the WC?
If we go to Commander Thorton Boswell’s ARRB testimony we will see more on the probe issue.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes. When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at--the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. And so if I can move this up to here--it's shown better on the front, actually. The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
If this is the case, then why were NO photographs taken of this successful probe to show the bullet entered where the WC claimed and exited out the front of JFK’s neck (throat)? Also, just a thought, but perhaps you couldn’t get a “finger or probe” through the alleged wound in the base of the neck because it did NOT exist? He finishes with “So IF you put a probe…”, but we know they did NOT or we would have evidence of this.
This sums it all up for me as we have to take their word for probing this wound.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long, blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
So no X-rays were taken with the probe inside the neck. NO photographs were taken with the probe inside the neck, but we are supposed to just believe they tracked the wound to show the wound that they claimed entered at the base of the neck exited out the throat. What does he mean by “I doubt it” when he was asked if any photographs were taken of the probe inside the neck? Isn’t this standard autopsy procedure? He also says the probe only went in three inches, but how thick is the average person’s neck anyway? How far did he expect it to go in IF it traversed the neck as claimed?
The last prosector was also asked about this before the ARRB – Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Finck.
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet - that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
He too says the probe was “unsuccessful” and notice how the question pertained to the UPPER BACK and NOT the base of the neck. Could it be that it was unsuccessful because the wound in the upper back only went in a finger length?
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful. That's all I can remember.
They could NOT show the two wounds were CONNECTED in anyway with probes or any other evidence, thus, the SBT is sunk and so is the WC.
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
Why not? IF the probe showed what was claimed we can guarantee there would be photographs, thus, the absence of photographs guarantees they would have showed something TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what was claimed by the WC.
This comment sinks the WC all by itself.
Q: Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?
Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?
A: I don't know.
IF the bullet tracked the way the WC claimed then there should have been NO problem performing a probe and photographing it, but we see it was UNSUCCESFUL because NO track existed since JFK was shot in the upper back and it only went in a short distance and fell out. The wound to the throat came from the FRONT and had nothing to do with the wound to the back, thus, JBC was hit with at least one different bullet! This means another shooter was involved and this of course is a conspiracy.
chorus.stimg.co/23760368/merlin_44772047.jpg
www.allmystery.de/i/t7884734c0_neck_transit_lateral_02.jpg
Let’s first look at Commander James Humes’ testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) regarding the neck probe of President John F. Kennedy (JFK).
Q. Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?
Humes. Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages.
There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.
Q. Was any probe used at all to track the path—
Humes. I don't recall that there was. There might have been some abortive efforts superficially in the back of the neck, but no. And if there's a standard protocol, I don't know where you'd find it, to tell you the truth.
If Humes did NOT even know how to probe a tract of a wound then he should definitely NOT been in charge of this autopsy. What does he mean by “There wouldn’t be any track that I could put a probe through…” if JFK was shot in the neck the way the Warren Commission (WC) claimed? What does he mean by “abortive efforts”? Is this because there was NO wound in the BACK OF THE NECK as claimed by the WC?
If we go to Commander Thorton Boswell’s ARRB testimony we will see more on the probe issue.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes. When we saw the clothing, we realized that where I had drawn this was--if you looked at the back of the coat, it was in the exact same place. But the coat had been--was up like this. He was waving, and this was all scrunched up like this. And the bullet went through the coat way below where this would be on his body, because it was really at the base of his neck. And the way I know this best is my memory of the fact that-- see, we probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it.
But when we opened the chest and we got at--the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. And so if I can move this up to here--it's shown better on the front, actually. The wound came through and downward just above the thoracic cavity and out at about the thyroid cartilage. So if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck.
If this is the case, then why were NO photographs taken of this successful probe to show the bullet entered where the WC claimed and exited out the front of JFK’s neck (throat)? Also, just a thought, but perhaps you couldn’t get a “finger or probe” through the alleged wound in the base of the neck because it did NOT exist? He finishes with “So IF you put a probe…”, but we know they did NOT or we would have evidence of this.
This sums it all up for me as we have to take their word for probing this wound.
Q. Could you tell me about how long the probe was or describe the dimensions of the probe?
A. It's a little soft metal instrument that looks like a needle with a blunt end on one end and a flattened end on the other, like a needle that you would knit with or something. And it's, I would say, eight inches long, blunt on one end and sort of has a sharp point on the other end.
Q. Were there any X-rays taken with the probe inside the body that you recall?
A. No.
Q. How far in did the probe go?
A. Very short distance. Three inches, about.
Q. Were there any photographs taken with the probe inserted?
A. I doubt it.
So no X-rays were taken with the probe inside the neck. NO photographs were taken with the probe inside the neck, but we are supposed to just believe they tracked the wound to show the wound that they claimed entered at the base of the neck exited out the throat. What does he mean by “I doubt it” when he was asked if any photographs were taken of the probe inside the neck? Isn’t this standard autopsy procedure? He also says the probe only went in three inches, but how thick is the average person’s neck anyway? How far did he expect it to go in IF it traversed the neck as claimed?
The last prosector was also asked about this before the ARRB – Lieutenant Colonel Pierre Finck.
Q: When you were performing the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you make any attempts to track the course of the bullet - that you referred to as the upper back?
A: Yes. That was unsuccessful with a probe from what I remember.
Q: In using the probe, did you attempt to determine the angle of the entrance of the bullet into President Kennedy's body?
A: Yes. It was unsuccessful from what I remember.
He too says the probe was “unsuccessful” and notice how the question pertained to the UPPER BACK and NOT the base of the neck. Could it be that it was unsuccessful because the wound in the upper back only went in a finger length?
Q: In the probes that you did make, did you find any evidence that would support a bullet going into the upper back and existing from the place where the tracheotomy incision had been performed?
A: From what I recall, we stated the probing was unsuccessful. That's all I can remember.
They could NOT show the two wounds were CONNECTED in anyway with probes or any other evidence, thus, the SBT is sunk and so is the WC.
Q: Do you have any recollection of photographs being taken with probes inserted into the wounds?
A: I don't.
Why not? IF the probe showed what was claimed we can guarantee there would be photographs, thus, the absence of photographs guarantees they would have showed something TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what was claimed by the WC.
This comment sinks the WC all by itself.
Q: Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?
A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?
Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?
A: I don't know.
IF the bullet tracked the way the WC claimed then there should have been NO problem performing a probe and photographing it, but we see it was UNSUCCESFUL because NO track existed since JFK was shot in the upper back and it only went in a short distance and fell out. The wound to the throat came from the FRONT and had nothing to do with the wound to the back, thus, JBC was hit with at least one different bullet! This means another shooter was involved and this of course is a conspiracy.