Ralph Yates

[Tom Scully]

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.

Quote from: Tom Scully, AKA Sir Walter Spottybottom, on September 19, 2014

Oswald's Note to FBI Agent Hosty
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100hostynote.html
Fenner reported that she had given the note to Kyle Clark, an assistant special agent in charge, who read it. Clark handed it back to .... Dave Reitzes home page......

The following is contained in this post, but if I post the document image links inside the quote box, they will not display.:

Hoover's FBI: The Inside Story by Hoover's Trusted Lieutenant
books.google.com/books?isbn=0895264285
Cartha D. Deloach - 1997


Okay, so far? Nothing to it, right? Case closed. Oh! One more thing.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=32

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.


.

I have to wonder, what do you get right, and how often does it happen? When the FBI, an FBI office staffer, an individual agent, his supervisor, the local office those individuals are assigned to, or a FBI HQ assigned agent or assistant director, or the director himself embarks upon deliberate deception, a number of considerations must first be made. I included an example of my thinking in a quote box inside the whole quote of your last post.

The topic in the box quoting me in a post at another forum is straightfoward, the Hosty note deception. I lay out, and support with linked pages, the coordination behind that deception, the challenges to it by the HSCA, and how it stood up. I examine the problems that arose after Hosty was trapped. Ms. Fenner, the staffer who received the note allegedly from LHO and passed it up, supported what Hosty testified to. Kyle Clark and Gordon Shanklin contradicted Hosty and Ms. Fenner. At least one of them was reminded during questioning by HSCA counsel that they were answering under oath.: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...8&tab=page

The point of this example, once again, is considering context and circumstances. No report was involved related to the Hosty note, and I illustrated through the pages I linked to that an internal (in the Dallas office) cover up took place. So, the way I end up miles apart from your approach is by evaluating the circumstances. The FBI employees with field experience investigate people who lie and cover up, and they learn through experience what works and does not work, and they become proficient as their careers unfold, in risk assessment related to what the probablilities are of what they can and cannot get away with in what they put on paper in the 302 reports that they affix their signatures to, at the page bottom.

Shanklin and Kyle Clark could contradict Hosty and Fenner under oath before a high profile investigation and all could walk out after and get on with their careers. it is a different matter when an agent in a local office or a SAIC of that local office falsely quotes a member of the public, or several members, in documents they sign and file or distribute to other local office and to FBI HQ.

While I am performing that sort of consideration in assessing the risks vs rewards of fabricating deception in any FBI document I am reading, you are dismissing the details in the document as fraudulent and then empowering yourself to proceed on an assumption that the opposite is reliable, as in the example of you embracing an opinion that Yates passed his polygraph test and that "fact" is confirmation he was telling the truth about picking up a hitch hiker carrying a package of curtain rods who was running off at the mouth about shooting the president from a tall building, mentioning the Carousel Club, and directing Yates to drop him off near the TSBD.

if you are satisfied with the results you achieve from your analysis approach, carry on. If not, research ways to improve your results.

In Landesberg, I see no point in field agents or the NYO SAIC sending a report to FBI HQ or telling the local Asst. U.S. Attorney that WMCA's Turner and Gray both confirmed after being presented with a photo of L'eandes that Rizzuto resemble L'eandes close enough to be the basis to refer charges against Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg for false impersonation and making false statements to a federal officer.

If you disagree, your suspicions and your admiration for Armstrong's research compete with my risk vs. reward analysis. The FBI was and does have a history of a corrupt bureacracy, as do any local, state, or federal agency empowered with authority.

I found through research that the CIA agent, Robert Lashbrook, who was with Frank Olson in the NYC hotel room, married shortly after Frank exited through a ten story window and Sid Gottlieb and another involved name were ushers in that Lashbrook's wedding.

Explain how that example of a tight knit organizational branch translates for comparison to what had to have been behind the Yates deception, if your suspicions were accurate. Who would have to do the risk taking in the example of Yates, and why would they assume such risks? I'm advising your that your premise both in Landesberg and in Yates is ridiculous. The need and anticipated reward doesn't incentivize the risk exposure in either of those two
cases.

You automatically assume that the Dallas office led by Shanklin would put the effort necessary to smear Yates so thoroughly that it would carry over to his death certificate eleven years later and involve how many individuals in the FBI from Dallas to DC and how many doctors at Parkland and at two state mental hospitals? Are you claiming the FBI had some sort of drug or technique to permanently make a man who was never documented to have been taken into their custody, broken and schizophrenic?

You fill these threads. You post statements such as "Yates passed his polygraph." You lecture me and accuse me of being an FBI man. If you cannot overcome my argument, you attempt to paint me as Cass Sunstein's golfing buddy, or maybe his brother-in-law's swimming pool cleaner.

If you are interested in discussing the actual facts, and the contents of FBI reports are the foundations for discussion, to be proven in the details as false or reliable, I am willing to participate. If you are intent on a structureless argument assuming that all official documents are too tainted from the outset to support any argument, I am asking you for the second time, what remains aside from suspicions and groundless claims like,
"Yates passed his polygraph"?

If you carry on, as you have, and I do not reply to you, I hope you understand that it is not because I am overwhelmed by the strength of your presentation.