Whaaaat?! LOL! Are you actually illiterate? Where in the world do you get the silly idea that the premise of this thread is that the Secret Service sent a bullet to Bethesda? Where? This is just some nonsense that you've made up, and now you're pretending that I've said this!

The premise of this thread, which you surely must already know (unless you're illiterate), is that two Navy chiefs, Mills and Martinell, found a deformed bullet and some skull fragments in JFK's limo at the White House garage, that they gave the bullet and skull fragments to Dr. Young in an envelope, that Dr. Young examined the bullet and the skull fragments, and that Dr. Young then handed the envelope to Dr. Humes.

This dubious, comical dodge deserves further comment. You have floated this argument at least twice before, and I refuted it both times.

Yet, here you are repeating it again and saying nothing about the contrary facts that I presented to you.

You want readers to believe that it would be understandable if the autopsy doctors egregiously mislocated the entry wound because the skull was so badly damaged and because they peeled back the scalp during the autopsy.

Some points in reply (again):

-- The FPP majority, whom you cite as the final and unquestionable authority only when it suits you, said there was no bone whatsoever missing from the occipital bone. As I've pointed out to you several times in other threads, the FPP's diagrams of the head wound show no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no problem whatsoever in seeing, examining, and measuring the entry wound in the occiput.

-- The fact that the autopsy pathologists reflected the scalp ("peeled back the scalp") makes it all the more absurd to claim that they could have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound 4 inches higher above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone. That would be as unbelievable and impossible a mistake as describing a wound in the middle of the wrist as a wound in the middle knuckle.

-- Dr. Finck, the forensic pathologist at the autopsy, explained that he examined both sides of the rear head entry wound after the scalp was reflected, and that he had photos taken of the interior side of the wound. (BTW, why do you suppose those photos never made it into the official set of autopsy photos?)

Here's what Finck said at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial when he was challenged by Assistant DA Al Oser with the Clark Panel's claim that the rear head entry wound was actually 10 cm (100 mm) higher than where the autopsy doctors placed it:

I saw that wound of entry in the back of the head at approximately 1 inch or 25 millimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance, and it was definitely not 4 inches or 100 millimeters above it. (Transcript, State of Louisiana vs. Clay Shaw, February 29, 1969, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/finckshaw.htm)

-- Dr. Boswell, one of the autopsy doctors and the head of the pathology department at Bethesda, explained to the HSCA and the ARRB that part of the rear head entry wound was contained in one of the late-arriving skull fragments. And, Dr. Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, disclosed to the HSCA that one of those skull fragments was a large fragment of occipital bone.

-- Dr. Humes, the chief autopsy doctor, was the head of anatomic pathology at Bethesda. He, of all people, would not have confused a wound 1 cm above the EOP in the occipital bone for a wound above the lambda and the lambdoid suture and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone, especially with the scalp reflected. The EOP, the lambdoid suture, and the sagittal suture are impossible to miss on a human skull.

-- Six witnesses who saw JFK's head wounds up close said the rear head entry wound was near the EOP and/or the hairline (the EOP was about 1 inch above JFK's hairline). They were Roy Kellerman (SS agent who viewed the body in the morgue after the autopsy), Francis O'Neill (one of the two FBI agents at the autopsy), John Stringer (chief autopsy photographer), Floyd Riebe (assistant autopsy photographer), Dr. James Young (who witnessed most of the autopsy), and Richard Lipsey (an Army officer ordered to observe the autopsy).

Stringer's placement of the wound is especially important because he was in charge of photographing the wound. In his ARRB testimony, Stringer adamantly rejected the claim that the wound was at the cowlick site. He practically scoffed at the claim. Similarly, Stringer's assistant, Riebe, agreed that the entry wound was in the "right posterior occipital region."

-- There were four obvious reference points on the skull and one on the head that the autopsy doctors had available to help them locate and describe the entry wound: the EOP, the lambda, the lambdoid suture, the sagittal suture on the skull, and the hairline on the head. The lambdoid suture is plainly visible and is a clear boundary on the skull that separates the occipital bone from the parietal bone. The sagittal suture is equally obvious, and it stops at the lambda, i.e., at the top of the occiput.

Given these obvious reference points, it boggles the mind to try to imagine how three pathologists, one of them a forensic pathologist and one of them an anatomic pathologist, could have examined and measured a wound that was supposedly above the lambda, above the lambdoid suture, and to the right of the sagittal suture in the parietal bone and then could have somehow imagined that the wound was actually 4 inches lower, below the lambda, below the lambdoid suture, below the sagittal suture, and just slightly above the EOP in the occipital bone. No way.

-- If you believe the autopsy photos are authentic, then you must believe that there were no skull fragments missing from the occipital bone and no visible damage to the entire area of the back of the head. Thus, the autopsy doctors would have had no trouble whatsoever in detecting and examining the rear head entry wound.

Of course, literally dozens of witnesses said there was an obvious hole in the back of the head that included a sizable part of the right occipital bone and a sizable part of the rear section of the parietal bone. Some of these witnesses were the two Parkland nurses who cleaned the large head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around it; the Parkland neurosurgeon, Dr. Kemp Clark, who examined the wound; Clint Hill, who observed the wound up close for several minutes on the way to Parkland and then saw the wound again when he came to the morgue for the express purpose of recording JFK's wounds; the two FBI agents at the autopsy; Floyd Riebe, the assistant autopsy photographer; and the three morticians who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy.

If the entry wound was slightly above and to the right of the EOP, the autopsy brain photos are undeniably fraudulent. Any bullet entering at the EOP site could not possibly have avoided tearing through the right occipital lobe and at least damaging the cerebellum, as the HSCA FPP correctly and emphatically pointed out. Yet, the brain photos show no damage whatsoever to the right occipital lobe or the cerebellum.

I pressed the link and my house exploded. The CIA must not like the link.

lame
Dudman was told directly and is substantiated by the other witnesses.
The Day quote is a first hand statement to the newspaper.

hearsay/ˈhirˌsā/
"Hearsay is information or a statement you heard from someone else rather than something you saw or experienced yourself."

There is nothing hear-say about either one.
  You just made that up.

A cop told him directly - how is that hearsay?

He said it directly to the Dallas Times Herald - in fact, he gave an estimation of yardage - Record of it was printed in the paper on 11/23
  Your faulted opinion of what is or isn't hear-say are just lame excuses that don't mean very much

What dodge? U are already aware two of them have been posted on the second page of this thread.
  Are stalling for time or is it just lame excuses to somehow hold it together?