Drew Phipps Wrote:The curtain rod story was committed to writing by Frasier late afternoon, on Nov. 22, in a written affidavit. That could easily have made it to public awareness before the 26th. Especially given the propensity of the DPD to leak details to the voracious reporters. However, I don't have a specific newspaper article or news video.
"Texas cable news has just published his article concerning the long-suppressed testimony of Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to their workplace at the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of 22 Nov. 1963."
"I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." -- Wesley Frazier SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963 /s/Mary Rattan Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
So, who leaked this: that Oswald carried a 2' long sack containing curtain rods?
How did Yates twist this into a 4' to 4 1/2' long package wrapped in brown wrapping paper?
The fudges are accumulating.
Again, can anyone cite a source from anywhere that Yates' information of the 26th was published anywhere before Yates reported on the 26th such that he could concoct his elaborate lie to report same to the FBI?
The doubters are snatching at straws by way of fudge production.
Your original supposition was that Yates had only a day to learn about the curtain rod/bag story before reporting it to the FBI. I am not maintaining that Yates is lying, I'm saying there was a few more days than that.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Drew Phipps Wrote:Your original supposition was that Yates had only a day to learn about the curtain rod/bag story before reporting it to the FBI. I am not maintaining that Yates is lying, I'm saying there was a few more days than that.
No one "leaked" a 27 inch length description, and Yates is reported to have described a package length of at least four feet, aka 48".
Wife Adds Evidence. Oswald told this neighbor the package contained "window shades." His wife, Marina, later told police Oswald had the rifle at the house on ..
On Sunday 24, November, after Ruby's arrest, D.A. Henry Wade at 3:40 describes Oswald's thursday evening overnight in Irving, reportedly to pick up window shades or curtains.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz_5KLrvBLk
"...when he came back, he had a package under his arm which he said were window curtains, I believe, or window shades....."
The "rules" in this discussion apparently are that whatever Myles or Mr. ???? "say" are gospel truth, facts notwithstanding.
November 27, 1963:
Yates co-worker Dempsey Jones, as reported by the FBI on 28 November.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...d%20shades
"...He said Yates is a big talker who always talked about a lot of foolishness......
...Yates said this boy had a package not described at the time, but after the death of the President, Yates described the package as a "long package" and then on telling the facts over again,
Yates said this man told him it was some window shades he was carrying for the company he (the man) had made....."
.This document is the Holy Grail and is assigned a weight of gigundous proportion, despite the problems that it is also reported and worded by the FBI, is part of their records, and is likely written
in their terminology. The FBI Dallas office had knowledge of Frazier's "curtain rods" statement, and there is the zero weighted wording by the same FBI of what Dempsey Jones allegedly said, just
one day after Yates's extraordinary claims.:
According to "the rules" a construct in opposition to fact finding, rather than encouraging it, the following documents must be consigned to a zero weighting.:
A reasonable analysis, giving more than due deference to Ralph Yates, considering the entirety of the extant references and the description of his schizophrenia displayed on his 1975 death certificate,
is that his claims were inconsequential and irrelevant if reasonable weight is assigned to all FBI records. Cherrypicking the "curtain rods" description attributed to Yates does not actual service to a reasonable
analysis, and neither does assigning zero weight to the FBI reporting of Yates's attempted polygraph result while assigning gigundous weight to what Yates's widow recalled an unnamed FBI agent saying to her, 42 years before, about the polygraph result.
Why be so firmly wedded to making this thread a useless exercise, and such a spectacle?
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Drew Phipps Wrote:Your original supposition was that Yates had only a day to learn about the curtain rod/bag story before reporting it to the FBI. I am not maintaining that Yates is lying, I'm saying there was a few more days than that.
My original supposition still holds. Wade might have been, but in actuality was not because Yates told the truth, the spring of Yates lie.
Decades of research would have pointed to a leak of "Frazier's 2 feet statement" on the 22nd or 23rd, had there been such a leak, because the publication in the media of such would have been found and noted. But such a leak was never published and never found. Thus, Wade's inaccurate mention of the 24th is the only logical source of a spring to Yates' alleged lie.
Since Wade's mention is obviously inaccurate and does not comport with Yates' statement on the 26th, it is deduced that Yate's was telling the truth.
And then there are the Albert Doyle's contentions as verification.
The FBI has had, and had then at the time, a proven record of deliberate falsification of fact in order to destroy witnesses who were inconvenient to the party line propounded by Hoover and commanded by Hoover by direct order. The FBI's vilification of Yates is only one case in point. Douglass & Doyle & many others have exposed the FBI as such.
The FBI duped the willing WC and the American people and many researchers who have an agenda or are gullible.
09-08-2015, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015, 01:36 PM by Tom Scully.)
Miles Scull Wrote:
Drew Phipps Wrote:The curtain rod story was committed to writing by Frasier late afternoon, on Nov. 22, in a written affidavit. That could easily have made it to public awareness before the 26th. Especially given the propensity of the DPD to leak details to the voracious reporters. However, I don't have a specific newspaper article or news video.
"Texas cable news has just published his article concerning the long-suppressed testimony of Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride to their workplace at the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of 22 Nov. 1963."
"I got up and finished getting ready and got my lunch and went to the door and met Lee on the car port. We then walked to my car, it was parked backed up at the side of the car port. Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2' long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods." -- Wesley Frazier SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963 /s/Mary Rattan Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
So, who leaked this: that Oswald carried a 2' long sack containing curtain rods?
How did Yates twist this into a 4' to 4 1/2' long package wrapped in brown wrapping paper?
The fudges are accumulating. Again, can anyone cite a source from anywhere that Yates' information of the 26th was published anywhere before Yates reported on the 26th such that he could concoct his elaborate lie to report same to the FBI?
The doubters are snatching at straws by way of fudge production.
You quote only details contained in FBI files, as did authors James Douglass and Larry Hancock. They were attempting to make their books interesting enough to purchase, and they both presented an impressive variety of thought provoking examples. The Yates example, unfortunately, was not one of them. Unless you have sources other than "as told to FBI agent Ben S. Harrison" (Harrison's 26 November "curtain rods" in his Yates interview report was included in an internal, confidential FBI document) you are determining what weighs what in a very limited number of relevant FBI report pages.
Your insistence is supported only by your insistence. You are wishing that "curtain rods" was the verbatim description Yates spoke to Ben S. Harrison, and you KNOW (sure you do!) Dempsey Jones did not say "window shades".......
Do you ever actually consider the problem? You do not start off with original research, you begin with faith in what you've read in Hancock's or Douglass's book and you quote it and then attempt to support what is actually impossible to support!
Pick a controversy you can actually support an interpretation of. This is not one. You desperately hug Dorothy Yates Walkers' 40 year old recollections,
including the inaccurate claim that Yates was sent by the FBI to a Dallas area mental hospital in which he remained for eleven years, immediately after the 4 January polygraph "incident". The record contradicts this. See http://www.larry-hancock.com/documents/exhibits_5.html and .PDF pg. 22: http://www.larry-hancock.com/documents/endnotes.pdf
Quote:Chapter 13. Patsies (SWHT - Larry Hancock) Exhibit 13-1, FBI reports and memoranda on Dallas Downtown Lincoln-Mercury Oswald 1. incident, September 1964. Excerpt from document CIA 104-10300-10078; Exhibit 13-2. 2. FBI Memo, November 27, 1963; FBI Report DL 44 1639 SA Ben S. Harrison. 3. Exhibit 13-3, FBI report of November 27, 1963; interview with Ralph Yates and his uncle, 4. Mr. J. O. Smith. The Jones interview was conducted by SA Arthur Carter; Dallas File DL 44-1639. 5. 2006 interview with Dorothy Yates by James Douglass in 6. JFK and the Unspeakable, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008) 353-355......
Dontcha have to do better than quote an inaccurate timeline and a misrepresented scenario, or are do you simply give yourselves a pass to make it up as you go along, because ???????
Albert Doyle Wrote:....................
Quote: On January 2, 1964, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with polygraph," the instrument more commonly known as a "lie detector."
On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates's polygraph examination that day: "Results of test were .inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions." Because his lie-detector test was inconclusive, Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.
During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview forty-two years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. He drove there with Dorothy. He was admitted that evening as a psychiatric patient. From that point on, he spent the remaining eleven years of his life as a patient in and out of mental health hospitals. ................
How much time do you imagine Dempsey Jones spent with Yates between the afternoon of 22 November and the morning after the national day of mourning (25 November)?
....but after the death of the President, Yates described the package.....
...Yates said this man told him it was some window shades he was carrying.....
.......Jones was unable to describe what agency Yates was talking about.
He said he recalled Yates mentioned calling "them" on November 26, 1963.....
Most significant in this instance was the package in brown wrapping paper that the man insisted on keeping with him in the cab, which he said contained "curtain ...
....During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview forty-two years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. He drove there with Dorothy. He was admitted that evening as a psychiatric patient. From that point on, he spent the remaining eleven years of his life as a patient in and out of mental health hospitals.[775]
775. Author's interview of Dorothy Walker (formerly Dorothy Yates, widow of Ralph Leon Yates), August 12, 2006.
On January 10, 1964, Kr. DONALD HOWARD ARMSTRONG,. 33121A Knight Street, advised that ..... Allegedly Picked Up by RALPH LEON YATES on Date ". ...... ATES telephoned SA C. RAY HALL, and stated he desired to alk with SA HALL ...
'voluntarily to C. RAY HALL, who has identified himself to me as a .... 27 (January 23, 1936, Dallas,. Texas) ". 5' 8" ... RALPH LEON YATES, Jr., age 2;. MARK A.
Texas, advised that on January 14, 1964, after her husband had been at the ... doctors there, RALPH LEON YATES was admitted as a patient, ... C. RAY HALL.
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1439193886 James W. Douglass - 2010 - ‎Biography & Autobiography
Most significant in this instance was the package in brown wrapping paper that the man insisted on keeping with him in the cab, which he said contained "curtain ...
Ten days after author Douglass's description of Dorothy Yates Walker's forty year old memories of Ralph's "forced" 4 January, 1964 commitment to a mental hospital.:
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
Are you actually trying to say that Yates' story which contradicts the official story was not something the FBI wanted discredited before investigated? That the FBI had more independent credibility from this investigation that am innocent bystander?
Tom... Your defending the FBI against Yates is repugnant and in my eyes negates all the work you put in. Your POV is not gold while it is obvious you defend the official version... Which amazes me given what I perceived as an insightful poster.
I'm not debating with you. I'm stating my feelings about your tactics here. You're good at twisting the facts to suit your desired conclusions by introducing your views as facts while claiming the knowledge is a priori to anyone who looks.
Your view requires we allow the FBI the right to claim a witness is wrong regardless of the evidence. On Nov 20 when it happened he was just another guy caught up in the web. And for saying anything against the official story, he got what all the others got.
So how about cutting the crap, and post real proof that supports your claims. FBI justification is not proof. Random simile is not proof. Crazy or not, Yates knew things beforehand that he shouldn't have...
Prove otherwise
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
09-08-2015, 04:57 PM (This post was last modified: 09-08-2015, 07:04 PM by Albert Doyle.)
What Scully plays dumb over is the fact FBI had to do damage control with a positive polygraph that showed Yates was telling the truth.
The most important paragraph in Scully's cut & pastes is the one that says the polygraph showed no emotional responses to the questions. As I explained to Lee Farley, what FBI is doing there is using word tricks to avoid admitting the polygraph read-out showed Yates was telling the truth.
A polygraph is a sensitive detector of bodily reactions to guilt. Telling a lie creates a stress or tensing of the body in order to push it across. This is reflected in breathing, muscle tensing, and a nervous reaction. The electronic technology of the polygraph is sensitive enough to detect this tension and transform it into waveform representation on a graph by inked needles connected to the output.
If you correctly interpret the context of the semantic deception FBI is committing, instead of repeating it like Scully does, the wording 'no emotional responses' is doubletalk for "no indication of lies". A lie creates an emotion that in turn creates a detectable reaction. Truth flows freely and creates no such responses. It is very clear that FBI is lying and trying to get around what the polygraph really showed. FBI is wicked and knows they can use Yates' contrived mental illness to overcome any questions over this. What they are doing is trying to say the test result was due to Yates' abnormality and therefore everything can be blamed on it.
The real results of the polygraph were privately related to Dorothy Yates by the FBI agent who said the polygraph showed Ralph was telling the truth.
Oh yeah, Dempsey Jones heard Yates speak of the package a day or two before the assassination. Yates passed a lie detector test showing this double put the package in the bed of the truck because it was too big to fit in the passenger cabin.
Scully refuses to acknowledge that Yates' passing of the lie detector test would force FBI, by procedure, to follow-through and investigate this proven Oswald double and his obvious need to frame Lee Harvey Oswald 2 days before the assassination. I think the doubters are unconsciously aware of this which is why they try to force their uncredible arguments so strongly.
This Miami News article of Nov. 25 is bogus and is indicative of a CIA hand at work at an OP to convict Oswald.
Wade never said that Oswald carried "a large paper-wrapped parcel" and Wade never said that a neighbor was told by Oswald that the "package" (Wade's term) "contained rolled curtains, but actually was a gun."
What Wade actually said has been stated in previous posts on this thread.
This Miami News article of Nov. 25 is bogus and is indicative of a CIA hand at work at an OP to convict Oswald.
Wade never said that Oswald carried "a large paper-wrapped parcel" and Wade never said that a neighbor was told by Oswald that the "package" (Wade's term) "contained rolled curtains, but actually was a gun."
What Wade actually said has been stated in previous posts on this thread.
Again, this is more clutching at straws via fudge production.
I tnink I'm finally getting the hang of this. Whatever your interpretation of and weighting of this information is, IS WHAT IT IS. If you decide an FBI agent has used wording that fits your beliefs, it
is rock solid, take it to the bank evidence. If the wording in an FBI report seems to undermine your beliefs, you point out it is sourced from the corrupt, malevolent FBI. A newspaper report is worded in
a way you object to, and.....it was planted by the CIA. Heads you win, tails I lose! This is fun......for you......
Rock solid, a game changer weight= a gazillion lbs.: (It is an inaccurate recollection, Yates was still making a pest and a spectacle of himself ten days later, but that must be beside the point?)
Quote:Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come. During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview forty-two years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. He drove there with Dorothy. He was admitted that evening as a psychiatric patient. From that point on, he spent the remaining eleven years of his life as a patient in and out of mental health hospitals.[775]
Meaningless, weight= ZERO:
Quote: His uncle, J. O. Smith, who went with him on his first trip to the FBI office, said of his nephew's story, "I really thought that was all just imagination."[784]
It is an FBI report, it is not signed by Yates, but the wording in it is unique, and it fits the belief system. (J.O. Smith, isn't that the uncle quoted in 2006?) Rock solid, a game changer weight= a gazillion lbs.:
[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&search=yates_and+shades#relPageId=422&tab=page"]http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&search=yates_and+shades#relPageId=422&tab=page [/URL]
This is a page of an FBI report. It is counter to certain belief systems. FBI is corrup, untrustworthy, malevolent. Scully, why do you bother to post FBI reports? Are you an FBI defender? Meaningless, weight= ZERO: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...d%20shades
Is it penetrating my thick skull? Scully, if we find it disagreeable, you are suspect for even posting it, don't you know the CIA and FBI planted fake reports and newspaper articles and
discredited witnesses they happened to just not kill, outright?
If we find it agreeable, as the unique "curtain rod" wording in FBI agent Ben S. Harrison's 27 November reporting of his 26 November Yates interview, it is heartily received, heavily
weighted, proclaimed as unimpeachable.
Pardon me, but there are no solid conclusions to be drawn in this instance because all Ralph Yates quotes are sourced from FBI reports and the 42 year old recollections of Yates's widow
and uncle conflict with each other. The resolute postures of those who post in this thread and maintain that they know what is definitive and what is not, are unreasonable.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
