28-03-2013, 10:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2013, 12:37 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Being a "Pain in the arse" is the assumed privilege of research. Certainly being such a pain to the right people for the right reasons is no offense. I'm sure the Government considers Assassination researchers to be a pain in the arse in a similar way. What's most obvious about the doubting position on Yates is that a good defense lawyer would shred it in short order. None of it disproves Yates when correctly viewed.
I don't have my sources right now but I heard from a person trying to take the same position as these doubters that Jones admitted Yates said the hitch-hiker had a package. The doubter said that didn't prove it was a rifle-like object wrapped in brown paper. However we are in the range of confirming facts there that can't be so cavalierly denied. We have 3 highly critical evidentiary bulls-eyes there that match in the package, shooting conversation, and the Depository drop-off point. The statistical odds in that case are astronomical and can't be dismissed so easily. If the doubters are accurate then Yates went right to Jones upon getting back to work in order to inform him he picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker. Jones never told the authorities that Yates approached him to tell him of this unremarkable event that would have deserved the response of "Oh yeah, so what?" What is most outstanding about these doubter arguments is they never show any interest in the begging inverse perspective. These doubters show no curiosity over the lack of interest by the authorities of where Yates had come from if it wasn't Oak Cliff? Smearing Yates as mentally ill doesn't quite answer this does it?
A good defense attorney would quickly point-out that just because Yates' employers said he had no job out by Oswald's boarding house doesn't mean he didn't pick-up the hitch-hiker there. There's too many possible reasons why Yates might not come forward with the exact reasons why he was there. It could be he wasn't supposed to be there but didn't want to admit it because of fear of his employer. Also, there's a serious long list of the investigators manipulating evidence. Until a thorough investigation of that employer's sympathies with the authorities is done you might as well quote Truly as an employer without doing any evaluation of his influences. I'm surprised the doubters don't see how flimsy an argument that is.
These doubters even admit Jones admitted Yates said he discussed shooting the president with the hitch-hiker. Hello. After passing a lie detector test on this story (that the doubters seem to ignore) I think we are over the hurdle here as far as confirmation of this discussion. At this point no credible researcher could deny the pattern of doubles setting-up Oswald in Dallas with crazy, brazen demonstrations of hostility and intent towards Kennedy. I frankly can't see how they would dare offer gratuitous doubt over this - with this instance once again repeating the pattern of key critical evidence bulls-eyes. Yet the doubters come back and say "Jones only said Yates picked-up a hitch-hiker." I think the part about shooting the president is pretty important and worth mentioning. Don't you?
A good defense lawyer would point-out that you don't know where Yates was in his mind during the FBI interview. He could have been vacillating on whether to come out with it all and waiting to judge the situation. Feeling-out the FBI. Also, I think it takes incredible nerve to quote FBI documents directly. You have no idea how much they deleted or omitted from those depositions. A good example is the doubters' quoting of the lie detector test results quoting FBI as saying they were 'inconclusive'. Decades later Dorothy Yates came forward and said one of the FBI agents took her aside and said Ralph had passed the test and, therefore, since we know Oswald was at work, it proves he's insane because only an insane person would truly believe this. Combine this with Jones pulling it all in and cooperating with the FBI authorities and you see the true nature of the statements. Maybe Jones was told he might lose his job if he got too involved? It's not like there isn't example after example of that like Specter threatening many witnesses.
A more honest evaluation of Yates is he had a family history of mental fragility. Put this type of personality under the duress of an FBI pressure cooker during their cover-up of a coup and it isn't surprising Yates retracted his Ruby statement. Yates' mind was being purposefully broken by FBI bastards good at the game. To not recognize or address this factor is abject travesty. Again, the doubters made no attempt to answer how Yates had no record at all of this credibility-destroying mental illness in his work record prior to his witnessing? A very strange mental condition indeed. One that goes from no trace at all to life-institutionalization with the minor stop at CIA double witnessing in between.
Another thing the doubters don't give adequate recognition to is Yates said the hitch-hiker resembled Oswald. Of course the doubters ask us to ignore that this happened numerous other times in Dallas in an identical way. Another critical key evidentiary bulls-eye. What the doubters are asking us to believe is that yes, FBI did do brazen manipulation of witnessings and statements but when it came to someone who directly witnessed a CIA double trying to frame Oswald dead to rights while Oswald was at work they didn't pull any dirty tricks and you can trust their records. Their driving Yates to a nervous breakdown was a clean shoot and they were just smoking-out a hoaxer. (A hoaxer who passed his polygraph)
I hate to be petty but I'm not familiar with shooting the president from a high building being "a common topic of conversation across Dallas." You know, the ordinary, common, run of the mill shooting the president conversation all ordinary Dallas citizen Oswald look-alikes were having while hitch-hiking with a rifle wrapped in brown wrapping paper, showing the backyard photo, clearly trying to set-up Oswald as being crazy and intending to shoot the president while being dropped-off and last seen strolling towards the Depository with the rifle conversation everyone was having.
Again to use Yates' history of mental illness against him in that incredibly out of context way is backwardsly wrong. The true context is Jones and Dorothy were intimidated into believing Oswald was at work at the time of Yates' witnessing. It's no surprise they sided against Ralph because Oswald was at work. However, decades later when Dorothy Yates got word of the good research finds since the assassination her guilt drove her to come forward and admit to a researcher that the FBI agent admitted Ralph passed the polygraph. If that polygraph, and just about everything else, isn't "evidence" I don't know what is.
There's a fine line between "standards of proof" and being stubbornly indifferent to all the key factors that line-up so perfectly. My standards of proof are a confident knowledge that the key clues are not being adequately addressed by the doubters. What's more than obvious to me is that this so-called doubt would be quickly shredded by any competent attorney and in no way does it disprove Yates or his witnessing.
If Yates just picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker why did he rush-in to tell Jones? Why did he mention the shooting the president conversation? Why would he risk loss of job and scandal to advance a hoax? The doubters contend Yates was of the particular category of psychopath that could fool a polygraph. This of course confirms his serious mental disturbance. Right in line with what FBI and the Commission contended...
.
I don't have my sources right now but I heard from a person trying to take the same position as these doubters that Jones admitted Yates said the hitch-hiker had a package. The doubter said that didn't prove it was a rifle-like object wrapped in brown paper. However we are in the range of confirming facts there that can't be so cavalierly denied. We have 3 highly critical evidentiary bulls-eyes there that match in the package, shooting conversation, and the Depository drop-off point. The statistical odds in that case are astronomical and can't be dismissed so easily. If the doubters are accurate then Yates went right to Jones upon getting back to work in order to inform him he picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker. Jones never told the authorities that Yates approached him to tell him of this unremarkable event that would have deserved the response of "Oh yeah, so what?" What is most outstanding about these doubter arguments is they never show any interest in the begging inverse perspective. These doubters show no curiosity over the lack of interest by the authorities of where Yates had come from if it wasn't Oak Cliff? Smearing Yates as mentally ill doesn't quite answer this does it?
A good defense attorney would quickly point-out that just because Yates' employers said he had no job out by Oswald's boarding house doesn't mean he didn't pick-up the hitch-hiker there. There's too many possible reasons why Yates might not come forward with the exact reasons why he was there. It could be he wasn't supposed to be there but didn't want to admit it because of fear of his employer. Also, there's a serious long list of the investigators manipulating evidence. Until a thorough investigation of that employer's sympathies with the authorities is done you might as well quote Truly as an employer without doing any evaluation of his influences. I'm surprised the doubters don't see how flimsy an argument that is.
These doubters even admit Jones admitted Yates said he discussed shooting the president with the hitch-hiker. Hello. After passing a lie detector test on this story (that the doubters seem to ignore) I think we are over the hurdle here as far as confirmation of this discussion. At this point no credible researcher could deny the pattern of doubles setting-up Oswald in Dallas with crazy, brazen demonstrations of hostility and intent towards Kennedy. I frankly can't see how they would dare offer gratuitous doubt over this - with this instance once again repeating the pattern of key critical evidence bulls-eyes. Yet the doubters come back and say "Jones only said Yates picked-up a hitch-hiker." I think the part about shooting the president is pretty important and worth mentioning. Don't you?
A good defense lawyer would point-out that you don't know where Yates was in his mind during the FBI interview. He could have been vacillating on whether to come out with it all and waiting to judge the situation. Feeling-out the FBI. Also, I think it takes incredible nerve to quote FBI documents directly. You have no idea how much they deleted or omitted from those depositions. A good example is the doubters' quoting of the lie detector test results quoting FBI as saying they were 'inconclusive'. Decades later Dorothy Yates came forward and said one of the FBI agents took her aside and said Ralph had passed the test and, therefore, since we know Oswald was at work, it proves he's insane because only an insane person would truly believe this. Combine this with Jones pulling it all in and cooperating with the FBI authorities and you see the true nature of the statements. Maybe Jones was told he might lose his job if he got too involved? It's not like there isn't example after example of that like Specter threatening many witnesses.
A more honest evaluation of Yates is he had a family history of mental fragility. Put this type of personality under the duress of an FBI pressure cooker during their cover-up of a coup and it isn't surprising Yates retracted his Ruby statement. Yates' mind was being purposefully broken by FBI bastards good at the game. To not recognize or address this factor is abject travesty. Again, the doubters made no attempt to answer how Yates had no record at all of this credibility-destroying mental illness in his work record prior to his witnessing? A very strange mental condition indeed. One that goes from no trace at all to life-institutionalization with the minor stop at CIA double witnessing in between.
Another thing the doubters don't give adequate recognition to is Yates said the hitch-hiker resembled Oswald. Of course the doubters ask us to ignore that this happened numerous other times in Dallas in an identical way. Another critical key evidentiary bulls-eye. What the doubters are asking us to believe is that yes, FBI did do brazen manipulation of witnessings and statements but when it came to someone who directly witnessed a CIA double trying to frame Oswald dead to rights while Oswald was at work they didn't pull any dirty tricks and you can trust their records. Their driving Yates to a nervous breakdown was a clean shoot and they were just smoking-out a hoaxer. (A hoaxer who passed his polygraph)
I hate to be petty but I'm not familiar with shooting the president from a high building being "a common topic of conversation across Dallas." You know, the ordinary, common, run of the mill shooting the president conversation all ordinary Dallas citizen Oswald look-alikes were having while hitch-hiking with a rifle wrapped in brown wrapping paper, showing the backyard photo, clearly trying to set-up Oswald as being crazy and intending to shoot the president while being dropped-off and last seen strolling towards the Depository with the rifle conversation everyone was having.
Again to use Yates' history of mental illness against him in that incredibly out of context way is backwardsly wrong. The true context is Jones and Dorothy were intimidated into believing Oswald was at work at the time of Yates' witnessing. It's no surprise they sided against Ralph because Oswald was at work. However, decades later when Dorothy Yates got word of the good research finds since the assassination her guilt drove her to come forward and admit to a researcher that the FBI agent admitted Ralph passed the polygraph. If that polygraph, and just about everything else, isn't "evidence" I don't know what is.
There's a fine line between "standards of proof" and being stubbornly indifferent to all the key factors that line-up so perfectly. My standards of proof are a confident knowledge that the key clues are not being adequately addressed by the doubters. What's more than obvious to me is that this so-called doubt would be quickly shredded by any competent attorney and in no way does it disprove Yates or his witnessing.
If Yates just picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker why did he rush-in to tell Jones? Why did he mention the shooting the president conversation? Why would he risk loss of job and scandal to advance a hoax? The doubters contend Yates was of the particular category of psychopath that could fool a polygraph. This of course confirms his serious mental disturbance. Right in line with what FBI and the Commission contended...
.