30-03-2013, 05:24 PM
I find it unfortunate that Lee Farley has decided to conduct himself the way he does in the debate over Ralph Yates' veracity. I did notice that Farley said the less said about Doyle the better. He then proceeded to make a post speaking about nothing but Doyle. But that's the problem, this issue isn't Doyle it's Ralph Yates and the evidence for his innocence. I find Farley's responses less than adequate and don't think they make any attempt to answer the main points in any direct way. I feel his emphasis on attacking me personally is a means by which he protects himself from giving serious treatment to the issues I raised. I think Lee's problem isn't with Doyle but the questions Doyle raises that Lee can't answer.
There's a couple of things that have to be cleared out in advance. That is that Lee isn't quite completely answering his unstated points or owning-up to them. His theory requires that Ralph Yates picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker in some meaningless place and invented the story that this innocent hitch-hiker was the one who initiated the shooting Kennedy story and Ralph then went back to work and decided to invent a fantastic tale of this hitch-hiker repeating the same story they had discussed in a strange way. Yates is pretty good because not only did he pass a polygraph on this but stuck to this crazy hoax up to his death after 11 years of mental institution confinement. Lee has a really convincing theory there, huh?
I don't think Lee realizes he hasn't come close to answering the germane points. He seems to think we've unfairly questioned the FBI documents. He asks us to give them a chance instead of raising these 'pesky' points. The whole time recklessly giving no heed to the FBI's record in this case or how Yates' witnessing would be one of the foremost instances where FBI needed to radically change testimony due to the danger of what he witnessed. I feel a more insightful analysis of the 3rd paragraph would show that FBI had not formulated its strategy yet when they took Jones' deposition. They allowed too much straight recording of fact where they let the key critical Oswald evidence slip through in unadulterated form. I feel I have made a fairly good attempt at illustrating that evidence in my post #4 and Lee has not come anywhere close to answering it. He ignores the evidence I spelled-out and returns with the grossly oversimplified claim that we are not giving the FBI a chance. Frankly I think Farley has dismissed himself from credibility on this alone. Any look at his style will show there are two levels of discourse occurring here. One juvenile and mocking, as well as avoiding the main points, and another attempting a serious analysis of Yates. I think anyone with good sense can see Farley is emphasizing off-point personal barbs exactly because he can't answer the serious evidence.
What annoys me about Farley is that he totally ignores the lengthily spell-out context of Yates' polygraph and returns to bluntly quote the FBI's version. Lee should understand that the FBI has an agenda here. It's a basic thing that anyone claiming fidelity to "research standards" should understand. They have a purpose in diminishing Yates' polygraph because they are trying to avoid incriminating themselves by admitting Yates was telling the truth. It isn't like there aren't many examples of FBI doing that - not to mention the Warren Commission. As I already explained, and Lee totally ignored, decades later Dorothy Yates told a researcher that one of the FBI agents who did the polygraph pulled her aside and told her Ralph had passed the test and it showed he was telling the truth. If you had a good grasp of the Ralph Yates' story you would understand that FBI used this passing result to justify saying he was crazy because it showed he actually believed what he was saying and that since Oswald was at work it proved Yates was crazy. This is all part of the record. Why does Lee ignore it and focus on me instead of the arguments?
Lee then resorts to mocking dramatization and semantic emphasis. But never does he quite get around to answering that there is enough evidence to show that Yates and Jones did have this conversation. Instead Lee makes cosmetic, superficial arguments that never quite answer how the 3rd paragraph serves to prove this, which it does, as I showed in my post #4. When correctly viewed the Jones FBI document evidences an evolution of FBI forcing this evidence down and making the witnesses back-off their witnessing. My post #4 made arguments showing this and showing how the original information in paragraph 3 locked-in the real evidence that FBI then proceeded to incrementally distort and discredit. I believe I have made a firm case that this sniping discussion did happen and FBI did make efforts to deny it and avoid its implications. Lee returns with mockery while imploring us to trust the FBI murderers. Hmm.
Lee won't admit it but he has made arguments that subvert the true record of what happened during that conversation when Yates returned to work. He has diverted the discussion to specious accusations of Yates inventing embellishments afterwards in order to avoid recognizing the things the 3rd paragraph proves. We are right back to things I pointed-out that Lee hasn't adequately answered. That is, that the statements Jones told of were perfectly understandable for someone who had no idea of their significance 2 days prior to the assassination. I've already explained that it is perfectly reasonable for Yates, a blue collar worker, to not get involved with a presidential assassination. He could have figured the investigation would discover the things he witnessed and there was no need for him to suffer the predictable personal ordeals of getting involved. It wasn't until after Oswald was shot that Yates felt compelled to come forward. This is all perfectly understandable. So while saying he isn't blaming Yates, Lee ignores what I just wrote and proceeds to blame Yates while castigating me. Forgive me if I find Lee's responses less than convincing.
Lee also isn't being honest about what he wrote. Anyone who read his original post would see he clearly makes an effort to say when all was said and done Jones admitted the only thing Yates told him is that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. As many people have pointed-out Lee manages this by giving unquestioned heed to the FBI's documents and honoring what they did to both Jones and Yates in their interviews without question. I believe my post #4 more than proves this contention is false and that Jones revealed several key critical points of evidence that can't be so carelessly ignored. Lee then mangles context and says the package wasn't described. But if he read what I wrote more faithfully I made it more than clear that Yates had no reason to give a precise description of that package on the 20th since the assassination hadn't occured yet. Lee fails to answer the point. That point was that we have more than adequate evidence that Jones heard Yates tell of this hitch-hiker possessing a package on the 20th. This is a key critical piece of evidence that validates Yates. Lee's answer to it? He ignores it and calls me 'picky'. Lee also totally ignores my telling in post #4 how the description of "window shades" actually aids Yates' credibility instead of harming it. Clearly Lee offers a superficial discussion of the arguments themselves instead of actually answering what those arguments say.
I feel if Lee was making an honest effort to get to the truth he would have made more of an effort to answer my 4 key critical points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance arguments. He made no effort whatsoever to address them. Here they are again:
{ 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. }
So although Lee did say Yates only told Jones he picked-up a hitch-hiker, even if Lee won't admit it, my arguments above fairly reasonably show that isn't true and there are serious evidentiary consequences to what Yates actually did say. Lee allows himself the privilege of ignoring this while attacking my efforts and suggesting he is practicing the more sound version of analysis. In short Lee hasn't given adequate response to the quote above and that pretty much sums up the failure of his theory. Any reasonable person can see the key evidence Yates discussed 2 days prior to the assassination is in the infinite range as far as possibility. There is no way any person making-up a hoax, as Lee contends, would be able to nail 4 key points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance as Yates did and this proves his innocence, as does Lee's inability to give this any credible response. Saying the FBI documents showed Jones retracted his account is reckless and doesn't give heed to what the original statement captured. Jones clearly said in paragraph 3 that Yates told him those things ON THAT DAY. Lee's response is a pleading for us to ignore this and trust the FBI's trying to get rid of this admission. He's not serious??? Any person actually practicing the so-called "research standards" Lee invokes would see the things said in paragraph 3 could not be retracted without serious explanation. Neither Lee nor Jones offer any such explanation.
This is a debate over the accuracy of Ralph Yates' story. It has serious consequences towards the assassination and is one of the foremost, right out there in the open examples of gov't wrongdoing in the assassination, which is why Douglass correctly cites it. I don't see how anyone could say they don't have any dog in the hunt on this seeing how important a case of assassination evidence it is. I mean that person usually doesn't shy away from these things. Nor would that person survive their own methods if they were turned towards this subject.
.
There's a couple of things that have to be cleared out in advance. That is that Lee isn't quite completely answering his unstated points or owning-up to them. His theory requires that Ralph Yates picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker in some meaningless place and invented the story that this innocent hitch-hiker was the one who initiated the shooting Kennedy story and Ralph then went back to work and decided to invent a fantastic tale of this hitch-hiker repeating the same story they had discussed in a strange way. Yates is pretty good because not only did he pass a polygraph on this but stuck to this crazy hoax up to his death after 11 years of mental institution confinement. Lee has a really convincing theory there, huh?
I don't think Lee realizes he hasn't come close to answering the germane points. He seems to think we've unfairly questioned the FBI documents. He asks us to give them a chance instead of raising these 'pesky' points. The whole time recklessly giving no heed to the FBI's record in this case or how Yates' witnessing would be one of the foremost instances where FBI needed to radically change testimony due to the danger of what he witnessed. I feel a more insightful analysis of the 3rd paragraph would show that FBI had not formulated its strategy yet when they took Jones' deposition. They allowed too much straight recording of fact where they let the key critical Oswald evidence slip through in unadulterated form. I feel I have made a fairly good attempt at illustrating that evidence in my post #4 and Lee has not come anywhere close to answering it. He ignores the evidence I spelled-out and returns with the grossly oversimplified claim that we are not giving the FBI a chance. Frankly I think Farley has dismissed himself from credibility on this alone. Any look at his style will show there are two levels of discourse occurring here. One juvenile and mocking, as well as avoiding the main points, and another attempting a serious analysis of Yates. I think anyone with good sense can see Farley is emphasizing off-point personal barbs exactly because he can't answer the serious evidence.
What annoys me about Farley is that he totally ignores the lengthily spell-out context of Yates' polygraph and returns to bluntly quote the FBI's version. Lee should understand that the FBI has an agenda here. It's a basic thing that anyone claiming fidelity to "research standards" should understand. They have a purpose in diminishing Yates' polygraph because they are trying to avoid incriminating themselves by admitting Yates was telling the truth. It isn't like there aren't many examples of FBI doing that - not to mention the Warren Commission. As I already explained, and Lee totally ignored, decades later Dorothy Yates told a researcher that one of the FBI agents who did the polygraph pulled her aside and told her Ralph had passed the test and it showed he was telling the truth. If you had a good grasp of the Ralph Yates' story you would understand that FBI used this passing result to justify saying he was crazy because it showed he actually believed what he was saying and that since Oswald was at work it proved Yates was crazy. This is all part of the record. Why does Lee ignore it and focus on me instead of the arguments?
Lee then resorts to mocking dramatization and semantic emphasis. But never does he quite get around to answering that there is enough evidence to show that Yates and Jones did have this conversation. Instead Lee makes cosmetic, superficial arguments that never quite answer how the 3rd paragraph serves to prove this, which it does, as I showed in my post #4. When correctly viewed the Jones FBI document evidences an evolution of FBI forcing this evidence down and making the witnesses back-off their witnessing. My post #4 made arguments showing this and showing how the original information in paragraph 3 locked-in the real evidence that FBI then proceeded to incrementally distort and discredit. I believe I have made a firm case that this sniping discussion did happen and FBI did make efforts to deny it and avoid its implications. Lee returns with mockery while imploring us to trust the FBI murderers. Hmm.
Lee won't admit it but he has made arguments that subvert the true record of what happened during that conversation when Yates returned to work. He has diverted the discussion to specious accusations of Yates inventing embellishments afterwards in order to avoid recognizing the things the 3rd paragraph proves. We are right back to things I pointed-out that Lee hasn't adequately answered. That is, that the statements Jones told of were perfectly understandable for someone who had no idea of their significance 2 days prior to the assassination. I've already explained that it is perfectly reasonable for Yates, a blue collar worker, to not get involved with a presidential assassination. He could have figured the investigation would discover the things he witnessed and there was no need for him to suffer the predictable personal ordeals of getting involved. It wasn't until after Oswald was shot that Yates felt compelled to come forward. This is all perfectly understandable. So while saying he isn't blaming Yates, Lee ignores what I just wrote and proceeds to blame Yates while castigating me. Forgive me if I find Lee's responses less than convincing.
Lee also isn't being honest about what he wrote. Anyone who read his original post would see he clearly makes an effort to say when all was said and done Jones admitted the only thing Yates told him is that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. As many people have pointed-out Lee manages this by giving unquestioned heed to the FBI's documents and honoring what they did to both Jones and Yates in their interviews without question. I believe my post #4 more than proves this contention is false and that Jones revealed several key critical points of evidence that can't be so carelessly ignored. Lee then mangles context and says the package wasn't described. But if he read what I wrote more faithfully I made it more than clear that Yates had no reason to give a precise description of that package on the 20th since the assassination hadn't occured yet. Lee fails to answer the point. That point was that we have more than adequate evidence that Jones heard Yates tell of this hitch-hiker possessing a package on the 20th. This is a key critical piece of evidence that validates Yates. Lee's answer to it? He ignores it and calls me 'picky'. Lee also totally ignores my telling in post #4 how the description of "window shades" actually aids Yates' credibility instead of harming it. Clearly Lee offers a superficial discussion of the arguments themselves instead of actually answering what those arguments say.
I feel if Lee was making an honest effort to get to the truth he would have made more of an effort to answer my 4 key critical points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance arguments. He made no effort whatsoever to address them. Here they are again:
{ 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. }
So although Lee did say Yates only told Jones he picked-up a hitch-hiker, even if Lee won't admit it, my arguments above fairly reasonably show that isn't true and there are serious evidentiary consequences to what Yates actually did say. Lee allows himself the privilege of ignoring this while attacking my efforts and suggesting he is practicing the more sound version of analysis. In short Lee hasn't given adequate response to the quote above and that pretty much sums up the failure of his theory. Any reasonable person can see the key evidence Yates discussed 2 days prior to the assassination is in the infinite range as far as possibility. There is no way any person making-up a hoax, as Lee contends, would be able to nail 4 key points of Oswald evidence 2 days in advance as Yates did and this proves his innocence, as does Lee's inability to give this any credible response. Saying the FBI documents showed Jones retracted his account is reckless and doesn't give heed to what the original statement captured. Jones clearly said in paragraph 3 that Yates told him those things ON THAT DAY. Lee's response is a pleading for us to ignore this and trust the FBI's trying to get rid of this admission. He's not serious??? Any person actually practicing the so-called "research standards" Lee invokes would see the things said in paragraph 3 could not be retracted without serious explanation. Neither Lee nor Jones offer any such explanation.
This is a debate over the accuracy of Ralph Yates' story. It has serious consequences towards the assassination and is one of the foremost, right out there in the open examples of gov't wrongdoing in the assassination, which is why Douglass correctly cites it. I don't see how anyone could say they don't have any dog in the hunt on this seeing how important a case of assassination evidence it is. I mean that person usually doesn't shy away from these things. Nor would that person survive their own methods if they were turned towards this subject.
.