29-03-2013, 06:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 29-03-2013, 07:25 PM by Albert Doyle.)
You can't be luke warm on this and ignoring it is just arrogance that should be called out.
Here is the transcript of Dempsey Jones' November 28th interview with FBI:
http://imgur.com//XiZxN
When viewed in the proper way, that is by putting the FBI corruption filter on the document, this interview virtually proves Yates was telling the truth. God save us from JFK researchers who are blind to the obvious and take the side of FBI and the Commission in destroying a very real witness. Researchers should be smart enough to see those doubters are ignoring things they have no right to if they were honestly seeking the truth on Yates. Their ignoring this evidence is just plain arrogance and should be seen as the intellectual dishonesty it is. The reason they don't answer the questions is because they can't. Simple enough.
The correct interpretation (in my opinion) is that FBI got Jones to say Yates was a big talker who talked a lot of foolishness, and put it prominently in the first paragraph, because they were trying to taint the document from the start with a discrediting of Yates. Doubters probably like that because it works for their purpose but they only take sides with FBI in doing that.
As some have correctly pointed-out this document's 3rd paragraph is key to understanding the real evidence. It shows what Jones actually said to FBI in his interview. A certain doubter has contended that Jones said Yates only told him he picked-up a hitch-hiker. The 3rd paragraph of this document disproves that and that doubter has not honestly accounted for it. His premise is completely disproven by this passage yet he hasn't come forth and admitted it.
The proper context of this paragraph reveals that Yates actually told Jones several key critical things that put his witnessing over the bar and clear him as having actually witnessed this event. A researcher with a good eye for evidence who is not solely guided by a need to discredit Yates would see this right away.
First off, if you view the 2nd paragraph you'll see it puts the 3rd paragraph into proper context. The 2nd paragraph shows that Jones did not contest the fact Yates was sent on a job. But more importantly - and this is the important part - it shows that the context is Jones translating what Yates told him upon arriving back at work. Simple examination of this will show that this account is completely different than what this certain researcher says it was.
There's 3 important things in the first sentence. First Jones says Yates told him 1) He picked up a "boy". It's important to note Oswald had a boyish appearance. You might say southerners called people 'boys', but this is still possibly significant. 2) It shows that on that day Yates told Jones he picked the boy up at Oak Cliff. By using FBI quote smoke and mirrors a certain researcher claims all Yates told Jones was that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Any look at this document will show that isn't true and that the true context is Yates provided a lot of important information during that talk.
Finally, in the first sentence Yates also told Jones that he dropped the hitch-hiker off at the Depository. So the first sentence, which the 2nd paragraph clearly connotes as being in the context of things Yates told Jones that day, reveals 3 important things. 1) The boyish look of Oswald. 2) A pick-up point only blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 3) A drop-off point at the Depository. To describe Yates' tale as only saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker in light of this is a serious violation of research standards. It's not surprising these people can't answer.
Critically important is the next sentence where Jones clearly relates that Yates told him on that day that the hitch-hiker had a package. What this is is clear evidence that 2 days prior to the assassination Yates confirmed a key piece of assassination evidence as well as a key element in his story. The doubters ignore this. They have no right to. Nor do they own-up to the fact Yates had no reason to describe the precise dimensions of that package on that day. But maybe he did as the following will show.
In the 2nd sentence Jones is clearly saying after the assassination Yates clarified that the man said the package contained "window shades". Doubters say this is proof Yates embellished his story. But if we examine the statement we see window shades are an interior decoration window item. Now if Yates had said "curtain rods" it might indicate he got this from news reports and was embellishing his story. However the description of window shades shows that this is different than curtain rods but is still a window interior decoration item being used as an excuse. Now if the CIA plotters had already designed a curtain rod ruse to cover the rifle, if this double was a CIA plant then his reference to window shades is right in line with their modus operandi particular to the assassination plot. The fact that window shades are other than curtain rods but similar in an important way actually aids Yates' credibility rather than hinders it. Doubters simply dwell on Yates adding this later on but smart researchers will see how it fits and helps confirm Yates' credibility. The truth is Yates had no reason to add the detail of window shades on the day of the witnessing so his only mentioning a package adds to his credibility instead of detracting from it.
Finally, the last sentence confirms without a doubt that Yates told Jones the man struck-up a conversation about shooting Kennedy with a high powered rifle from an office building during his Dallas motorcade visit. This is hardly Yates simply saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Doubters have no right to ignore how this overt attempt to frame Oswald as being dangerous and showing a manic need to shoot Kennedy falls right in line with other such frame-ups occurring with Oswald look-alikes in Dallas prior to the assassination.
Now that we've properly analyzed the correct context of Jones' interview we can show how it contains several key elements that prove Yates' witnessing was real. The document clearly confirms that 1) Yates told Jones he picked-up the hitch-hiker in Oak Cliff blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 2) Yates told Jones the man had a package. 3) Yates told Jones he dropped the man off at the Depository. 4) Yates told Jones that the man struck-up a conversation similar to the one Yates had with Jones about shooting someone coming up from the overpass with an easy shot. Except the hitch-hiker was talking about it being Kennedy on his visit. It was the reason Yates told Jones about it in the first place because of the bizarre coincidence. If you read carefully Jones admits he and Yates had this conversation about sniping someone in the Plaza. In their rush to judgment doubters somehow never get around to admitting this or its relevance.
What this document proves is that Yates managed to nail 4 key critical points of assassination evidence 2 days prior to the assassination. The true assassination research interpretation of this is that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to nail 4 key critical pieces of Oswald-related Kennedy assassination evidence 2 days prior by chance. The statistical probability would be in the impossible range. Doubters try to get rid of this fact by improperly suggesting Yates should have come-up with all the precise details on the day of his witnessing. But these doubters ignore the fact that Yates, 2 days prior to the assassination, would have no reason to give details that were only relevant 2 days later when Oswald was accused of shooting Kennedy.
What a certain doubter flagrantly ignores is that Dorothy Yates was induced to turn on her husband and aid FBI in their commitment of Ralph Yates. Dorothy was like many Dallas citizens who trusted the practiced authority of FBI and took them at their word. The perceived confirmed fact that Oswald was at work when Yates experienced his encounter was enough to convince people like Dorothy and Jones that Yates perhaps had gone off the deep end and needed help. This, of course, became a Twilight Zone nightmare for Yates who knew what he experienced was real only to have all the closest people around him, as well as the trusted authorities who were suppose seek and act on information like this, all conspire against him and call him crazy. A certain doubter flagrantly ignores the fact (and context) that Dorothy Yates got word of Oliver Stone generation revelations that made her come forward out of guilt over what she had done to her husband and tell assassination researchers that the FBI agent who participated in the polygraph pulled her aside and told her Ralph had passed the test. He didn't tell Dorothy Yates that Ralph was unemotional in his responses, he specifically told her the test showed Ralph was telling the truth.
This certain doubter says that if Yates' story was true the plotters would have used it to their advantage to further frame Oswald. He contends they would have adjusted Oswald's time card to make him late and therefore use this witnessing as prime evidence that Oswald was guilty. However in his rush to disprove Yates this doubter forgets that Oswald's co-workers could have disproven that story. A clear insurmountable conflict that would backfire on the plotters.
Taking the side of FBI against one of the worst victims of the assassination is one thing but doing it while ignoring clear evidence of his innocence is inexcusable in my opinion. As is the research community being luke warm and giving this betrayal of assassination research credibility and support. Like Charles Drago said - This is a war god damn it.
I'd like that certain doubter to honestly read this post here and answer it directly without any dodging ridicule or superfluous focusing on semantics and isolated words. Can someone get him to do that? There's a serious issue here of a researcher falsely accusing a serious victim. Let's see some of those "research standards".
.
Here is the transcript of Dempsey Jones' November 28th interview with FBI:
http://imgur.com//XiZxN
When viewed in the proper way, that is by putting the FBI corruption filter on the document, this interview virtually proves Yates was telling the truth. God save us from JFK researchers who are blind to the obvious and take the side of FBI and the Commission in destroying a very real witness. Researchers should be smart enough to see those doubters are ignoring things they have no right to if they were honestly seeking the truth on Yates. Their ignoring this evidence is just plain arrogance and should be seen as the intellectual dishonesty it is. The reason they don't answer the questions is because they can't. Simple enough.
The correct interpretation (in my opinion) is that FBI got Jones to say Yates was a big talker who talked a lot of foolishness, and put it prominently in the first paragraph, because they were trying to taint the document from the start with a discrediting of Yates. Doubters probably like that because it works for their purpose but they only take sides with FBI in doing that.
As some have correctly pointed-out this document's 3rd paragraph is key to understanding the real evidence. It shows what Jones actually said to FBI in his interview. A certain doubter has contended that Jones said Yates only told him he picked-up a hitch-hiker. The 3rd paragraph of this document disproves that and that doubter has not honestly accounted for it. His premise is completely disproven by this passage yet he hasn't come forth and admitted it.
The proper context of this paragraph reveals that Yates actually told Jones several key critical things that put his witnessing over the bar and clear him as having actually witnessed this event. A researcher with a good eye for evidence who is not solely guided by a need to discredit Yates would see this right away.
First off, if you view the 2nd paragraph you'll see it puts the 3rd paragraph into proper context. The 2nd paragraph shows that Jones did not contest the fact Yates was sent on a job. But more importantly - and this is the important part - it shows that the context is Jones translating what Yates told him upon arriving back at work. Simple examination of this will show that this account is completely different than what this certain researcher says it was.
There's 3 important things in the first sentence. First Jones says Yates told him 1) He picked up a "boy". It's important to note Oswald had a boyish appearance. You might say southerners called people 'boys', but this is still possibly significant. 2) It shows that on that day Yates told Jones he picked the boy up at Oak Cliff. By using FBI quote smoke and mirrors a certain researcher claims all Yates told Jones was that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Any look at this document will show that isn't true and that the true context is Yates provided a lot of important information during that talk.
Finally, in the first sentence Yates also told Jones that he dropped the hitch-hiker off at the Depository. So the first sentence, which the 2nd paragraph clearly connotes as being in the context of things Yates told Jones that day, reveals 3 important things. 1) The boyish look of Oswald. 2) A pick-up point only blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 3) A drop-off point at the Depository. To describe Yates' tale as only saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker in light of this is a serious violation of research standards. It's not surprising these people can't answer.
Critically important is the next sentence where Jones clearly relates that Yates told him on that day that the hitch-hiker had a package. What this is is clear evidence that 2 days prior to the assassination Yates confirmed a key piece of assassination evidence as well as a key element in his story. The doubters ignore this. They have no right to. Nor do they own-up to the fact Yates had no reason to describe the precise dimensions of that package on that day. But maybe he did as the following will show.
In the 2nd sentence Jones is clearly saying after the assassination Yates clarified that the man said the package contained "window shades". Doubters say this is proof Yates embellished his story. But if we examine the statement we see window shades are an interior decoration window item. Now if Yates had said "curtain rods" it might indicate he got this from news reports and was embellishing his story. However the description of window shades shows that this is different than curtain rods but is still a window interior decoration item being used as an excuse. Now if the CIA plotters had already designed a curtain rod ruse to cover the rifle, if this double was a CIA plant then his reference to window shades is right in line with their modus operandi particular to the assassination plot. The fact that window shades are other than curtain rods but similar in an important way actually aids Yates' credibility rather than hinders it. Doubters simply dwell on Yates adding this later on but smart researchers will see how it fits and helps confirm Yates' credibility. The truth is Yates had no reason to add the detail of window shades on the day of the witnessing so his only mentioning a package adds to his credibility instead of detracting from it.
Finally, the last sentence confirms without a doubt that Yates told Jones the man struck-up a conversation about shooting Kennedy with a high powered rifle from an office building during his Dallas motorcade visit. This is hardly Yates simply saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Doubters have no right to ignore how this overt attempt to frame Oswald as being dangerous and showing a manic need to shoot Kennedy falls right in line with other such frame-ups occurring with Oswald look-alikes in Dallas prior to the assassination.
Now that we've properly analyzed the correct context of Jones' interview we can show how it contains several key elements that prove Yates' witnessing was real. The document clearly confirms that 1) Yates told Jones he picked-up the hitch-hiker in Oak Cliff blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 2) Yates told Jones the man had a package. 3) Yates told Jones he dropped the man off at the Depository. 4) Yates told Jones that the man struck-up a conversation similar to the one Yates had with Jones about shooting someone coming up from the overpass with an easy shot. Except the hitch-hiker was talking about it being Kennedy on his visit. It was the reason Yates told Jones about it in the first place because of the bizarre coincidence. If you read carefully Jones admits he and Yates had this conversation about sniping someone in the Plaza. In their rush to judgment doubters somehow never get around to admitting this or its relevance.
What this document proves is that Yates managed to nail 4 key critical points of assassination evidence 2 days prior to the assassination. The true assassination research interpretation of this is that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to nail 4 key critical pieces of Oswald-related Kennedy assassination evidence 2 days prior by chance. The statistical probability would be in the impossible range. Doubters try to get rid of this fact by improperly suggesting Yates should have come-up with all the precise details on the day of his witnessing. But these doubters ignore the fact that Yates, 2 days prior to the assassination, would have no reason to give details that were only relevant 2 days later when Oswald was accused of shooting Kennedy.
What a certain doubter flagrantly ignores is that Dorothy Yates was induced to turn on her husband and aid FBI in their commitment of Ralph Yates. Dorothy was like many Dallas citizens who trusted the practiced authority of FBI and took them at their word. The perceived confirmed fact that Oswald was at work when Yates experienced his encounter was enough to convince people like Dorothy and Jones that Yates perhaps had gone off the deep end and needed help. This, of course, became a Twilight Zone nightmare for Yates who knew what he experienced was real only to have all the closest people around him, as well as the trusted authorities who were suppose seek and act on information like this, all conspire against him and call him crazy. A certain doubter flagrantly ignores the fact (and context) that Dorothy Yates got word of Oliver Stone generation revelations that made her come forward out of guilt over what she had done to her husband and tell assassination researchers that the FBI agent who participated in the polygraph pulled her aside and told her Ralph had passed the test. He didn't tell Dorothy Yates that Ralph was unemotional in his responses, he specifically told her the test showed Ralph was telling the truth.
This certain doubter says that if Yates' story was true the plotters would have used it to their advantage to further frame Oswald. He contends they would have adjusted Oswald's time card to make him late and therefore use this witnessing as prime evidence that Oswald was guilty. However in his rush to disprove Yates this doubter forgets that Oswald's co-workers could have disproven that story. A clear insurmountable conflict that would backfire on the plotters.
Taking the side of FBI against one of the worst victims of the assassination is one thing but doing it while ignoring clear evidence of his innocence is inexcusable in my opinion. As is the research community being luke warm and giving this betrayal of assassination research credibility and support. Like Charles Drago said - This is a war god damn it.
I'd like that certain doubter to honestly read this post here and answer it directly without any dodging ridicule or superfluous focusing on semantics and isolated words. Can someone get him to do that? There's a serious issue here of a researcher falsely accusing a serious victim. Let's see some of those "research standards".
.