Ralph Yates

[Albert Doyle]

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.

That's pure bombast Scully. Anyone can see you made a soapbox filibuster speech that never directly answered a single one of my points.

The strength of my presentation is evinced by your evasion of it I dare say.

I'm advising your that your premise both in Landesberg and in Yates is ridiculous.

Sure Scully. And that's why you basically didn't refute anything I said and agreed with me at points. You have an annoying habit of veering into irrelevancies that don't really answer anything and then returning to your critical conclusions about my posts as if the two were connected. Frankly I think it is your presentations that are lacking and your pompous suggestion that I consult your entries as an example is foolish. All you have done here is avoided answering the main point. That is, that the FBI lied about Yates' polygraph results with the intent of railroading him just like they did SH Landesberg. That the FBI was acting dishonestly with intent in order to avoid evidence of Oswald doubles, and therefore a conspiracy. Your specious detours into ruminations over form do not relieve you of the need to answer this.

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 really have a remarkably poor understanding of Deep Politics and the depths the authorities went to in this event. You're ignorant of the fact that intel admitted it had such drugs. You're answering your own question. You're trying to seize the narrative in order to avoid a basic question. Correct methodology would ask why FBI didn't practice due diligence and investigate the positive polygraph? People fall for the trick and knuckle under to FBI power, but FBI is supposed to be a world class investigative authority. Therefore it is supposed to live up to those standards. And those standards dictate that FBI, at minimum, follow-through to see if there is anything connected to that positive polygraph. Scully, of course, with his head in clouds of sophist vapors doesn't seem concerned with this while he instructs me on my failures. Deniers seize the narrative in order to avoid answering how a guy who passes his polygraph ends up committed to a mental institution?


Several posts now and I'm still waiting for you to answer where exactly you draw the line on the veracity of FBI reports vis a vis Oswald?


.