Ralph Yates

[David Josephs]

David,

No, this is not Mary's Mosaic. If I did not know that, I know it now because my discovery of the lack of documentation of a 3 AM interview inside WMCA radio studios by Barry Gray, is not a discovery that there is any particular interest in having to deal with.

I sometimes am amazed at how a belief system affects receptiveness to consideration of new facts.

You seem to have missed my entire point in presenting details of my old post documenting the exposure of the lack of integrity related to the JFK Assassination in the Dallas FBI office. Even
reading it in your last post, I am still astounded that you seem to think I was saying the opposite of what I attempted to say. I have to take some responsibility for your misinterpretaion, so now I'll attempt to make it unambiguous.

I tried to show Mr. Doyle, via the Oswald note cover up example, that it is one thing for the SAIC and ASAIC, Shanklin and Clark, of the Dallas office, to conspire to suppress the truth that Hosty had been trapped into disclosing by Ms. Fenner and the HSCA, and it is quite another matter to attempt to smear Ralph Yates for the rest of his life, up to and including a result in which the word schizophrenia appeared on his death certificate. I even supported this with the example of
the closeness of the CIA men who seemed to have driven Frank Olson out of a ten story high window of an NYC hotel. Lashbrook and Gottlieb were close personally, as supported in the fact I included, Gottlieb was in Lashbrook's wedding party not long after Olson's murder.

The perjury of Shanklin and Clark in their HSCA testimony was calculated and not absurd. The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd. It is reasonable upon consideration of the known record, including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity.

I come to this using the same discernment methods I used in the missing CIA assassin of Mary Meyer claim, and the assumption that Barry Gray met James F Rizzuto in an in person late night interview and thus knew he was a different individual than Yves L'eandes.

You imply that I am somehow not equipped to accurately weigh the details in FBI reports, but you, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scull, Hargrove, Armstrong, somehow have the right stuff to glean the truth from them.

I advised you to pick your shots. You are taking a leap of faith in claiming that the Yates controversy is a good example of FBI assassination cover up conspiracy. I think instead it exposes weakness in your broader discernment. If I was going to stick my neck out by risking my credibility over an important controversy, this certainly would not be one that I would embrace.
In contrast, I think the perjury of Shanklin and Clark in reaction to Ms. Fenner and Hosty over their testimony about the Oswald note is an incredibly strong and persuasive example.
Fred Olson's leap from the hotel window is a great example of the depths of depravity inside the CIA. If they would subject one of their own to involuntary drugging and dropping out of a tall building, what are they capable of doing to any one of us?

What is your take on this? Does it not imply that Armstrong knows how to use primary sources,
but Tom Scully does not, or do you agree with me that it makes little sense and is hypocritical?:

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.

Tom... I understood what you were saying

Here's a thought, how about we both not bother advising each other on our POVs or which "shots" to take or how our "cred" is... K? You want to know what Jim or John meant, ask them please. As for me, it appears you are reacting over sensitively to this dicussion.

At the core of your response is your disbelief in YATES' story. That somehow he knew details of the assassination 2 days prior to the event based on this hitchhiker pick-up story, that he conveyed these details 2 days prior to a friend... and yet you believe his claims are absurd.

But you never explain why you feel that way given the evidence or"known record" as you call it. What I see is a Dec report in which the FBI gets it's "mental illness" question answered - No history of mental illness - a back problem. I see Hoover ordering his agents to discredit Yates' story (how does Hoover know about the two Oswald's Tom?) I see the man being told he is crazy and being put away for shock therapy at the behest of the FBI who is the central figure in the cover-up of the conspiracy to kill JFK

Instead you talk about an internal FBI issue as if these people check their subterfuge at the door - and you don't see that as absurd on its face? The FBI goes from investigation mode to disappear the man mode while painting him crazy. And yet you repeatedly put the blame on YATES.... ??

You wrote this - right Tom?
"The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd."

" I[B]t is reasonable upon consideration of the known record,[/B] including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity."

From what do you arrive at this conclusion Tom for it surely was not the article I just read... and since when is "DC DAVE" the acknowledged expert on everything JFK? When in reality it was Douglass' book he was simply quoting?

I went to see the DC Dave article you spoke of http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120418.htm (the only one that comes up for "YATES" when the site is searched - in fact his 2006 to present archive does not have any article with YATES inthe title ?!?)

According to this 2012 article, DC Dave appears to be saying the FBI is to blame for using the "mental illness" card once again to silence a truthful wintess to the existence of two Oswalds.

"Army cryptographer Dinkin had very good
reason to believe that he was taking a real risk when he tried to prevent
President John F. Kennedy's assassination by revealing the plans for it that he
had discovered. So he might not have been completely surprised when they ended
up throwing him into a mental institution. But consider the case of poor Ralph
Leon Yates, who must have thought that the information he volunteered about a
man he thought to be Lee Harvey Oswald would be helpful to the government. "

DC does not support the YATES is crazy conclusion you keep fostering at all when comapring him to others who were aware or witnessed conflict with the official record and kept quiet (Vinson)

"Only the FBI knew why Ralph Yates needed to be taken seriously. Not even Yates himself, who had no sense of an Oswald double, understood the significance of what he felt compelled to say for the rest of his life. Only the Federal Bureau of Investigation recognized the importance of his testimony, with the threat it posed to the government's case against Oswald. If evidence surfaced of the Oswald-like hitchhiker, who delivered his "curtain rods" to the Depository two days before the assassination, it would have preempted and brought into question the government-endorsed curtain rods story, as given by Buell Wesley Frazier. Thanks to the bungling redundancy of cover stories, the plot to kill the president was again in danger of exposure."

Tom - please state your position in this case.. do you think Oswald is guilty of something? The FBI innocent of anything? The SS and CIA and I&NS not in league with these two other agencies to foster a cover-up at any expense including the commitment of a Secret Service Agent?

Where do YOU stand and what are YOU trying to prove here?

Thanks
DJ