Quote: If this response makes my bona fides suspect to the self professed keepers of the flame, you challenged me to explain myself because you know you know better than I do. Take care not to appear too similar to Simkin or Janney in reacting to my research or to how it has influenced me.
.......
David Joseph asks in a sincere way, why I exhibit obvious hesitancy to accept that Yates's claims of his discussion details with a hitch hiker carrying a long package, supported by a conclusion of Yates's passing an FBI administered polygraph are reasonable (and accurate) claims. I view the Yates claims, and the claim that he passed his polygraph test, as extraordinary, as I view the claim that CE-399 was a "magic" bullet, or that a magic bullet passed through JFK before being the source of all of Connally's wounds.
Josephs... Tom, with an "S". And how about dropping the defensive posturing? This is not about who knows more or better than another; this is about coming to the point of your argument and supporting it with evidence.
You start to answer the question, yet you never get to it.
We all understand you think YATES was somehow able to describe and offer terms and verbiage about the assassination PRIOR to the event due to what, his mental illness..?. The Radionics you describe is better suited for the ROKC Forum where there are a few who subscribe to such mental abilities.
If you can't explain how he was able to relay details of the assassination and a key player PRIOR to the event, you cannot move on to the extraordinary assumption that he claims were somehow extraordinary.
And we don't need pages of geneological tangents thrown at us to comprehend your reply. Can you please simply say what you mean?
Your adding to the pool of knowledge with your connections among people is appreciated yet are usually allegorical rather than clarifying. Information for information's sake is interesting and worth analysis yet you never seem to connect the dots you lay out on the page.
We all do not see things as you do Tom... you obviously have a gift for how the connections MAY work and how the history of relationships among the players dictates the results we now study...
Yet like Tom Hume's codes, you spend more time on the process than the analysis and how that changes how we see the assassination related events.
Please answer the question Tom: Why is Yate's signed statement a serious enough problem for the FBI that Hoover needs it discredited to the point that Yates himself is driven to mental illness?
When Yates, who is now and has been assumed to be mentally incompetent - in YOUR mind - repeats the story without change or embellishment a number of times finally writing it out himself and signing for the authenticity of it, is asked about his mental illness history,
we find it was a BACK PROBLEM. That he was never diagnosed as mentally ill.
It matters not what an FBI agent may or may not have said to his wife as recounted 42 years later.
It matters not that the FBI claims the polygraph was inconclusive based on THIER explanation
It matters not what DC Dave thinks or what Douhglass wrote...
What matters is how Yates goes from being a witness relaying the information voluntarily with a request NOT to use his name or grant any publicity for the sake of his children to an FBI initiated hospitalization in order to completely discredit the man.
What matters is that none of the info from Gilpin or Charlie's Meat Market is available other than as a paraphrase thru FBI filters. Unless you have these authenticated FBI interview docs...?
Yes or No Tom -
1. FBI evidence and explanation in this case is reliable and trustworthy on its face FIRST, proven to be so SECOND - as opposed to the other way around.
2. Lee Oswald is completely innocent of killing either JFK or Tippit and was set up as a Patsy
3. Harvey & Lee is a viable and well supported explanation for the conflicts in the evidence left for us to discover since "People don't read" and would never find them anyway
======================
This, it seems, is what you are
not saying but mean to say:
- Yates made the entire thing up, there was no hitchhiker, no story, no check, no nothing... Yet was somehow able to relay info that only becomes known after the assassination, prior to the assassination...
So do you believe that Dempsey Jones is also fabricating yet you accept the FBI report that Gilpin and Charlie's Meat did not corroborate his story... why Tom, cause the FBI says so and it's not an internal cover-up?
Did our man YATES write poems as you claim the FBI says he did PRIOR to the hitchhiker episode?
Is there any event in his life which leads you to believe he did not experience what he did in his truck with this man and chose to voluntarily tell the FBI this huge lie?
Please 'splain as I do respect your work and efforts. I am focused on "the Evidence IS the Conspiracy" and have been for a while now.
After my years of research I come to find one constant:
The overwhelming majority of the evidence we have been given in this case illustrates the conspiracy, not the event. The evidence which illustrates the event can be counted on one hand (JFK's Shirt and jacket are the only ones I've seen so far)
The YATES story is indicative of how the FBI curbed any deeper investigation into a second Oswald for which YATES is only one of a mountain of events which illustrate there being at least 2 Oswald's and that the man Ruby shot was NOT the naturally born Lee Oswald.
Tom - why would the FBI need to discredit Palmer McBride or Oswald attending Stripling Jr High within days of the assassination? why would the FBI create an entirely ficticious trip to and from Mexico City while knowing for a fact the CIA was lying to him about Oswald in Mexico?
What explanation satisfies why potential conflicts in the timeline of his life 5 to 10 years earlier would help solve the case as opposed to insure that records which clearly show the existence of a 2nd Oswald in life but only a shadow in the documents are suppressed as completely as possible?
