Ralph Yates

[Tom Scully]

Miles!

Great to see you here back in the fray...

Hope things are well by you... been doing a lot of work since we last spoke... all up on CTKA.net

Take care
DJ

PS... you can be sure that if certain disgruntled Australian people present one thing, the reality is most certainly the exact opposite...

::headbang::

David,

I'm not from or associated with Australians, so I expect you are not including me. We get to pick our shots and it seems a good idea to prioritize them, and that is a consideration that makes it doubly difficult to understand where you are coming from in this instance.

The forceful personalities on the other side of this ongoing disagreement will continue to limp under the weight of their own reputations and penchant for shooting at their own feet regardless of any reconsideration of your own assessment of this, David. I advise you to block them out of your mind if you chose to reexamine what you think vs. what you actually have.

Is Ralph Yates and are his claims worth what i guess can be called the "influence capital" that has to be put at risk if you make the choice of disregarding the "stuff" I am confined by because of my approach in discerning what is what in this particular controversy, as in the study of any other.

Is it worth it, considering what you actually can bring to an argument opposite of what I am discerning about this controversy? I cannot escape agenda influenced discernment, so recognizing that my agenda can cloud my thinking, I try to pick my shots carefully. The record make me run from this one, as i see nothing of great value to gain, and my credibility on the line. I save going out on a limb for the few instances when I think it really matters.
We all form impressions of each other, and I am trying to keep it about the details, instead of about the baggage associated with the delivery.

I am sorry, I do not understand how you can expect your position in this particular controversy is constructive in a broader sense. Mrs. Yates does not seem much help...... I checked. I've studied DC Dave's work related to the alleged suicide of Forrestal at Bethesda and the investigation that never was into his death, the Willcutts Report.
DC Dave related, and I already presented some of the contradictions, that Mrs. Yates was recounting 42 year old memories of interacting with the FBI. She said the FBI as much as ordered her husband to do directly to the Mental Hospital. The reporting indicates doctors at Parkland got in between her memory of the timeline, and Ralph's death certificate indicates a schizophrenic condition thirteen years later.

It does not help that neither you or Mr. Scull included anything supporting your interpretations in either of your posts that come closely on the heels of my last post, and Mr. Doyle's reply to my post read as a scolding session supported by his suspicions.

Is everything I have posted from the record in attempting to support my dismissal of Yates's veracity and of the importance of what he had to say, irrelevant, especially considering it seems preposterous to me on it's face, even if he had presented a verifiable reason for being in a position to pick up the hitch hiker, as well as a reputation as a healthy and a credible person, according to his wife and co-workers. Is a single one of my cites of any value or influence?

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...nd%20check





Donald Mask's coworker, Ayres is also quoted by the FBI as claiming that he reviewed company records and found
no check issued as claimed by Yates and added that such an event was counter to his business's bill paying
practices. I see no reason to waste further effort in posting an image of that statement, as well, until I
read your reply.

Is a consequence of dismissing everything I have presented, that there is no structure and no method bent on evaluating and impeaching what cannot be verified, claim by claim, and is the risk then that all arguments are reduced to presenters yelling at each other? Is their a potentially broad audience for people presenting arguments
founded almost entirely on suspicions fueled by an overall estimation of the level of the duplicity of investigative
authority? Morley and his attorney Lesar may not have won their FOIA lawsuit, but the result of their by the book
litigation effort was that we know much more about the CIA role and interest in LHO in New Orleans than we would have if Jim Lesar had pled that the FBI and CIA fabricated all related records.