21-07-2015, 05:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-07-2015, 05:36 PM by Albert Doyle.)
You never answered my question if you consider the FBI reports about Oswald as truthful, as you do Landesberg and Yates? You seem to be an FBI man who champions their reports and their content without question. I criticized the fact you seem to give no notice to the FBI's proven track record on the assassination and how it relates to the content and flavor of their reports. You, once again, ignore it and return to challenging people's credibility using the FBI reports as rock solid, infallible mountaintop sources. I find it interesting that you never detail when you decouple from that method and vary with FBI on their reporting on Oswald? How trustworthy is FBI's reporting on Oswald and how is their portrayal of him "supported" as you say? You place a lot of weight on the semantic entity of "supported" by relying on documents. You seem to equate documents with unquestionable veracity without ever getting into the detail of FBI's agenda and how it plays out in the content and intention of their reports.
We know Yates was telling the truth because Dempsey Jones confirmed it.
Scully, why do you need to diminish Dorothy Yates' story by saying it was recounted years later? Your post seems to be saying to disregard Dorothy Yates' account and go right to the printed FBI material from the time. That somehow time discredits Dorothy Yates and makes her specific detailing of how the FBI agent pulled her aside and told her the polygraph actually showed Ralph was telling the truth, uncredible. And that the immediacy of the FBI reports somehow erases their agenda and makes their content automatically truthful and without any kind of corrupting intent - even though everything involved clearly points towards that?
Scully you've got a problem with your overly-general argument. If indeed the FBI told Dorothy that they were committing Ralph because the polygraph showed that he actually believed he was telling the truth, then why didn't they simply say that on the report in order to bolster their prosecution of Yates? You see what you have just shown is that FBI committed a conflict in reporting two different things. Why did they do that? If you are familiar with the Ralph Yates story FBI justified their institutionalization of Yates by saying the fact Oswald was known to be at work - while Yates passed a polygraph showing he actually believed he saw Oswald in his truck - meant he was certifiably crazy. So if that was the basis for his being committed why didn't the FBI just detail that? Why would they mush up this clear cause and report the polygraph as "inconclusive"? If you need this explained to you what FBI is doing is avoiding any self-incriminating evidence in order to destroy Yates in as self-serving a general manner as possible. This is because they needed to make Yates responsible for his own undoing rather than FBI's diabolical corruption. What they are obviously avoiding is anyone asking if maybe the reason Yates passed the polygraph was because it actually happened. Do you also back FBI's polygraph of Jack Ruby?
Both you and Parker go back and impose yourselves before people who were actually there. This shows a sort of desperation to get around what you know conflicts with your belief. There's a certain arrogance involved in going back and correcting people who were actually there. It shows a lack of respect for the evidence and its truthful interpretation. If you read your post it tries to make the case that Yates was generally mentally ill and therefore not credible. It goes even further and says that therefore the FBI description of Yates and their destruction of witnessing is credible because of this. But you conveniently skip over the fact that that wasn't how it happened. FBI didn't deny Yates because he was mentally ill. They specifically denied him because they said the passed polygraph showed he was insane because we know Oswald was at work and therefore couldn't possibly be in Yates' work truck at the same time. This is where your FBI report-based dismissal can't get away with what it attempts. Not so fast, Scully. Credible practicers of Deep Politics look more for what isn't in FBI reports rather than what is.
If this was the specific reason why FBI committed Ralph Yates then FBI should have reported it that way. The reason they didn't is because, like what they did with SH Landesberg, those FBI Gestapo gained an advantage by abusing their power and destroying Yates' credibility by means of the cowardly route of breaking him interrogation style and then exerting their full FBI power. Scully, I have very little respect for people who ignore all these obvious circumstances and come in on the side of the vicious FBI violators against their horrific victim whom they eventually murdered. And if you think mental institutions don't have sadistic staff who follow FBI's wants just like the Dallas Police then you're completely naive about how these things work. You need a Deep Political re-education. To ignore this truthful description of the Ralph Yates incident and repeat FBI reports verbatim, as if they were credible, says something in itself. You and Von Pein should get along because you both practice the exact same methodology. I'm just waiting for you to break free and start quoting the Warren Report as "support".
Where you and other Yates' deniers stumble is there were many other Oswald double sightings. If you analyze your input, like with the FBI reports on Oswald, you stay safely away from detailing which of these you accept and which you reject? This can only be interpreted as a defense of FBI's position that hangs back and doesn't commit to any fraud by FBI in order to keep your arguments safe. So you and those others need to account for how many of those other doubles sightings you believe and how many you don't? You need to draw the line and stake a clear position. Because once you do that you'll find those same FBI reports that you hold as holy also deny and disregard those witnessings in the exact same way they did Ralph Yates. By staying safely away from ever committing to this you avoid having to acknowledge, by means of the facts, that you practice a purely Lone Nutter form of analysis that conforms 100% on all levels with their methods. Like Parnell you practice a defense of FBI with your back to the wall asking all comers to live up to it. But anyone can see how much you have to ignore to do that and how faulty an approach that is in relation to the bigger picture. It's a ruse that is achieved by never admitting the obvious falseness of FBI and their information.
So if this is a contest of who is going to answer whose evidence I feel quite safe sticking to my entries. I feel quite safe as to which side I defend and answer to vs which side the challengers are really defending without admitting it. FBI's lies won't get you out of this evidence Scully or the need to answer it. Sticking to your FBI report playing cards is not a submittable position on any Deep Politics site.
.
We know Yates was telling the truth because Dempsey Jones confirmed it.
Scully, why do you need to diminish Dorothy Yates' story by saying it was recounted years later? Your post seems to be saying to disregard Dorothy Yates' account and go right to the printed FBI material from the time. That somehow time discredits Dorothy Yates and makes her specific detailing of how the FBI agent pulled her aside and told her the polygraph actually showed Ralph was telling the truth, uncredible. And that the immediacy of the FBI reports somehow erases their agenda and makes their content automatically truthful and without any kind of corrupting intent - even though everything involved clearly points towards that?
Scully you've got a problem with your overly-general argument. If indeed the FBI told Dorothy that they were committing Ralph because the polygraph showed that he actually believed he was telling the truth, then why didn't they simply say that on the report in order to bolster their prosecution of Yates? You see what you have just shown is that FBI committed a conflict in reporting two different things. Why did they do that? If you are familiar with the Ralph Yates story FBI justified their institutionalization of Yates by saying the fact Oswald was known to be at work - while Yates passed a polygraph showing he actually believed he saw Oswald in his truck - meant he was certifiably crazy. So if that was the basis for his being committed why didn't the FBI just detail that? Why would they mush up this clear cause and report the polygraph as "inconclusive"? If you need this explained to you what FBI is doing is avoiding any self-incriminating evidence in order to destroy Yates in as self-serving a general manner as possible. This is because they needed to make Yates responsible for his own undoing rather than FBI's diabolical corruption. What they are obviously avoiding is anyone asking if maybe the reason Yates passed the polygraph was because it actually happened. Do you also back FBI's polygraph of Jack Ruby?
Both you and Parker go back and impose yourselves before people who were actually there. This shows a sort of desperation to get around what you know conflicts with your belief. There's a certain arrogance involved in going back and correcting people who were actually there. It shows a lack of respect for the evidence and its truthful interpretation. If you read your post it tries to make the case that Yates was generally mentally ill and therefore not credible. It goes even further and says that therefore the FBI description of Yates and their destruction of witnessing is credible because of this. But you conveniently skip over the fact that that wasn't how it happened. FBI didn't deny Yates because he was mentally ill. They specifically denied him because they said the passed polygraph showed he was insane because we know Oswald was at work and therefore couldn't possibly be in Yates' work truck at the same time. This is where your FBI report-based dismissal can't get away with what it attempts. Not so fast, Scully. Credible practicers of Deep Politics look more for what isn't in FBI reports rather than what is.
If this was the specific reason why FBI committed Ralph Yates then FBI should have reported it that way. The reason they didn't is because, like what they did with SH Landesberg, those FBI Gestapo gained an advantage by abusing their power and destroying Yates' credibility by means of the cowardly route of breaking him interrogation style and then exerting their full FBI power. Scully, I have very little respect for people who ignore all these obvious circumstances and come in on the side of the vicious FBI violators against their horrific victim whom they eventually murdered. And if you think mental institutions don't have sadistic staff who follow FBI's wants just like the Dallas Police then you're completely naive about how these things work. You need a Deep Political re-education. To ignore this truthful description of the Ralph Yates incident and repeat FBI reports verbatim, as if they were credible, says something in itself. You and Von Pein should get along because you both practice the exact same methodology. I'm just waiting for you to break free and start quoting the Warren Report as "support".
Where you and other Yates' deniers stumble is there were many other Oswald double sightings. If you analyze your input, like with the FBI reports on Oswald, you stay safely away from detailing which of these you accept and which you reject? This can only be interpreted as a defense of FBI's position that hangs back and doesn't commit to any fraud by FBI in order to keep your arguments safe. So you and those others need to account for how many of those other doubles sightings you believe and how many you don't? You need to draw the line and stake a clear position. Because once you do that you'll find those same FBI reports that you hold as holy also deny and disregard those witnessings in the exact same way they did Ralph Yates. By staying safely away from ever committing to this you avoid having to acknowledge, by means of the facts, that you practice a purely Lone Nutter form of analysis that conforms 100% on all levels with their methods. Like Parnell you practice a defense of FBI with your back to the wall asking all comers to live up to it. But anyone can see how much you have to ignore to do that and how faulty an approach that is in relation to the bigger picture. It's a ruse that is achieved by never admitting the obvious falseness of FBI and their information.
So if this is a contest of who is going to answer whose evidence I feel quite safe sticking to my entries. I feel quite safe as to which side I defend and answer to vs which side the challengers are really defending without admitting it. FBI's lies won't get you out of this evidence Scully or the need to answer it. Sticking to your FBI report playing cards is not a submittable position on any Deep Politics site.
.