06-08-2015, 09:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2015, 12:17 AM by Miles Scull.)
Albert Doyle Wrote:Drew Phipps Wrote:Just curious why you would assume the moniker of an at least "partly-discredited-by-virtue-of-insanity" eyewitness to the Oswald double story. That strikes me as callous. Wasn't the use of the Ralph Yates name the topic of some other seemingly pointless post in the recent past? What are you up to?
Yates is only discredited if you believe the word of the FBI in its Kennedy assassination investigation.
Honestly, if we look at FBI's behavior in its investigation it lied, corrupted evidence, operated with the intent to enforce a cover up, and very likely participated in killing witnesses. What you are saying is take their word on Yates who otherwise, by comparison, actually comes up much better as far as credibility than FBI.
Yates wasn't at all insane. Any claims of insanity concerning Yates come after the FBI forced his breakdown by denying his witnessing and making Yates reconsider his understanding of reality where he previously thought FBI would react honestly to evidence.
No, Yates was telling the truth as his FBI polygraph showed. The positive outcome of that test included Yates confirming that he had seen the backyard photo. I assume the photo the hitch-hiker showed Yates was one of the backyard photos. The backyard photo showed Lee Harvey Oswald's face. Yates passed a lie detector test where he claimed the hitch-hiker, the man in the photo, and the man shown on TV after the assassination were all the same person.
Why do you doubters accept the FBI's word when they are trying to destroy Yates but then don't accept it when it backs him? Practicers of Deep Political analysis should know that what is written in FBI reports is not nearly as valuable as what isn't. When the FBI man told Dorothy Yates that Ralph had passed the test that is the most meaningful evidence here and speaks the most. It exonerates Yates and shows he wasn't insane. Certainly not at FBI's word.
Concerning Yates, how is it logical to assume as likely or plausible that Yates would have concocted his elaborate falsehood to tell the FBI on Nov. 26th based on information Yates learned on Nov. 24th (or 25th?) from the Wade evening news conference of Nov. 24th? That's one day Yates had to formulate his complex lie. Further, there is no evidence that Yates was actually aware of the Wade news conference information.
What motive would Yates have had to thus lie to the FBI? Doing so risked jail, job and his supporting his family (of 5 children, was it?).
To assume this likely is clutching at straws in the extreme.