Ralph Yates

[David Josephs]

David,

I found this in searching less than ten seconds, using the terms together, polygraph baseline inconclusive. I am arguing what is obvious, it is wishful, ludicrous for Mr. Doyle to assert as if it was a fact that Yates is reliable because "he passed his polygraph test." Whether he posts that, or you do, it ends this particular area of discussion, because it is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, even without the additional evidence that Yates was suffering from mental illness that ended his ability to live outside of a secure institution, per his wife's own later narrative and the disease description on his death certificate.

Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Ralph's documented polygraph test result as reported by those who administered the test to him was that his responses could not be measured because no baseline (contrast) could be established. He responded similarly to control questions at the outset, that were obvious untruths when the untruths were put to him, and also to known truthful questions. If you yearn so badly for this to have meaning other than it has, I have no alternative than to take your analysis of his polygraph test result to be unreasonable. You're making "stuff" up. In taking your position, you are leaving me with a farther reaching impression.

Mr. Doyle asked "what about" Yates's wife's 42 year old memory and recall of what an FBI agent allegedly told he about Yates's polygraph test result? I do no know what to do with that recall.
I weigh it. I consider the overall purpose of DC Dave's interview of Mrs. Yates so many years after the fact, and the emotional impact on the breakdown of her husband's mental health of Mrs. Yates and her children, shouldered by the woman during those 42 years. I compare her recall of an undocumented conversation with an unnamed FBI agent in early 1964 compared to the entire record, including the FBI report related to the polygraph test and what is included in the disease description on Yate's 1975 death certificate, and I conclude that Mrs. Yates's recall does not weigh much. i am satisfied that my conclusion about this is reasonable for the reasons i just stated. I try not to permit broader assumptions to interfere with this analysis.

And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?

Tom...

I for one can appreciate the careful and calculated way in which you approach the evidence... yet your initial assumptions that the FBI reports are reliable and representative of the investigation rather than primae facia evidence for the conspiracy itself is where, I believe, you begin your journey taking a step and building on thsoe steps into the wrong direction..........

Huh? Are you lecturing me?

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?

----------------
Please understand that my experience indicates the problem here is not my approach or my analysis. The problem is the clouding effect of deeply held, broad assumptions. No belief system should interfere with the work of getting to the truth.

"Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?"

"And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?"

"My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?"

"Huh? Are you lecturing me?"

Tom - That you believe what the FBI and their reports say about those who had offered conflicting evidence for the existence of duplicity in many areas of the case is burning up your "cred"...

There is not a single case of duplicity with the Oswalds which is not countered in some way by the FBi involving the standard responses - mental illness, after the fact relaying of info in the public domain for recognition, or just plainly that the witness is wrong.


I am glad you were so instrumental in adding clarity to the Mary's Mosaic situation... this is not that situation.

I never said he "passed or failed" in fact I posted that wasn't the way polygraphs work. I imagine those reading my work understood and do t[B]ake me seriously - what kind of screwed up question is that to ask me Tom?
[/B]
As for my "cred"... and your impaired neutral assumptions, followed by yet another insulting question.
Have you read my work on Mexico? Judy Baker? Oswald's plan to assassinate?
It's all working out just fine, thank you. (unless you're the only one getting "I got it right" stars on your JFK wallchart of success... I didn't get any gold stars)

As for the lecture - you're dam right I'm lecturing you. Until you understand the context of the FBI of 1963 (and the 20 years prior and 10 years post) it appears to me that you believe whatever they put in their reports and what they say in their testimonies (FAITH again). That their allegiance is to the USA and not Hoover's good ole FBI and their careers. And then if the report or statement involves those outside the FBI it is reliable and authentic.

C'mon Tom... WAKE UP.

Does the FBI offer anything to substantiate YATE's mental condition?
-------------

Addressing your tangents:

(you posted this about the "note" - it does not enter your realm of possibility that Kyle is covering his a$$ and those of his FBI. That there is little reason for Ms Fenner to improvise a note delivery yet, after the fact, the FBI's brass would not want to make sure this was seen as a falsehood by an underling.

Okay, so far? Nothing to it, right? Case closed. Oh! One more thing.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...2&relPageId=32

I noticed in your post about the note you do not mention Kenneth Howe... p23 from the same document you linked to... more proof the note existed and that Kyle and Shanklin are CYAing.

It's hard to understand what you are saying regarding the note... are you claiming that the FBI will not fabricate evidence if those outside the FBI are involved? As that is what I get from this last passage you wrote:

"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."

So because the FBI spoke to his wife the info about YATES is golden? Please explain your position so it is easily understandable Tom... talking about "cred"... packing posts with enough ancillary info thru links that it takes days just to figure out what you're saying has even me shaking my head in wonder. The depth is fantastic yet we are here looking to you - assuming you;ve read all this info - to present you synopsis... HOW do all these links tie together into what YOU think. If you can't commit to a conclusion at least take the time to illustrate the connections are are trying to establish...
-------------
Now why would the FBI add this to their report on YATES? Only to go so far out of their way to discredit the man as to have him committed... ?

So if you can post or link to info you have related to YATES and state plainly what you believe happened there - it would be appreciated. on the other hand, if you feel you "risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?" then approach with whatever assumptions you want. I take people at their word and for what they post.

So let's stay on topic - YATES' mental stability and how it goes from this in Dec to locking him away. And how he would have known the info he conveyed to his friend Dempsey Jones the same day...

If I have misunderstood your approach, please help me understand as I have always considered you a good source and a serious researcher... if not, then we need to have a serious discussion about the evidence in this case and what it is you believe occurred.