Ralph Yates

[Bill Kelly]

See for docs:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...974.0.html

[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html
[/URL]
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...176.0.html

If nothing else... these links illustrate the desperate measures LNers without a clue about the evidence go to to rebut a well presented case.

and why we are so very thankful that the owners/mods here drew a line at the foot of these people...
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

DJ

The crux of the matter remains... do you believe unsigned, uncorroborated FBI reports done after the fact which go out of their way to discredit a witness who, in more cases than not, has to be very, very afraid to know something, or even THINK they know something related to the killing of their president... in 1963? Especially if the person believes he sat next to and spoke with the assassin just a few days before?

Can anyone post a FBI report similiar to this that actually makes Oswald look more innocent... about ANY subject, ANY sighting, ANYTHING?

"Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- to obvious..."

Lies "seem" too obvious... Facts "are" too obvious... The man works for JUSTICE... how are OBVIOUS FACTS, "unfortunate" in the proving of guilt?

I don't think it is Lone Nutters without a clue who are the problem, as they can be ignored.

And I don't think those questioning Yates' story are Lone Nutters, but they are seriously trying to refine what we know, and determine what is the most important and significant evidence and what can be left out - that isn't up to standards of evidence that we use to determine what we believe.

BK
JFKcountercoup
JFKCountercoup2