31-03-2013, 09:28 PM
I think any smart researcher can see Lee Farley is seeking the quickest excuse out of the evidence he can find and not applying the best form of inquiry one who is seeking the truth would apply. Lee should be proud of himself because he has earned himself a place right along side the likes of David Von Pein and Vinny Bugliosi in his approach.
When examining the 4 key critical pieces of evidence that confirm Yates it is obvious that they accumulatively, in combination, create a convergence of evidence that proves Yates' story. Lee might think he's being clever but it is actually he who fails to meet the criteria of evidence in disproving those critical pieces of evidence.
For instance Lee tries to say that the entrance ramp to the Thornton Expressway was in an area common to transients who might hitch-hike with a package. Well that doesn't come close to answering the convergence of facts I showed. The truth is Oak Cliff was home to a lot of important assassination events. Oswald's boarding house was there as was the Tippit shooting. I think Jack Ruby had an apartment there as well. Lee tries to force all this out of his arguments and pretend it doesn't exist just like he tries to eliminate the true nature of FBI documents and their truthfulness. Lee asks us to shop for diamonds in bead shops. The hitch-hiker came from the right direction Lee. I think we're well in the ballpark there, despite your efforts to deny it.
I don't find Lee's approach very credible because if one was analyzing the pick-up point correctly one would have to include the fact Yates said the hitch-hiker was identical in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee ignores this and hopes his counter-arguments will suffice, however one has to remember that Yates passed a polygraph on this. Now that's damned-good for someone who Lee is contending fabricated this Oswald similarity in order to embellish his story later-on. And let's just ignore, as Lee does, the fact that many other Dallas citizens witnessed Oswald doubles trying to set-up Oswald or acting suspiciously.
Lee isn't being quite honest about the package either. He's now backed-off his previous claim that Yates only told Jones of picking-up a hitch-hiker in his normal manner. He's doing it without saying it directly or admitting it. But that's not how it works. The truth is the context of that package exists in combination with the several other key points like Oak Cliff and the Oswald look-alike. This honest evaluation, that includes all these things in combination, as it properly should, shows that a person who was confirmed as having the shooting Kennedy conversation on the 20th is a person who, if they looked like Oswald, and were trying to set him up like other look-alikes were recorded as doing, would make the significance of this package much more incriminating. Lee, of course, ignores all this and tries to force this object as simply being a non-descript package. Lee also ignores the fact Yates would have no reason to describe the package as gun-like 2 days before the assassination. In my opinion the full universe of coincidences I just pointed out precludes any such deficient analysis.
Lee once again commits a logical offense by asking why Yates didn't describe the package as either window shades or curtain rods on the 20th. I'll point-out, once again, that it is Lee who hasn't provided the credible evidence because he has yet to show why Yates would need to describe the package that way on the 20th 2 days prior to the assassination? As I pointed-out before Lee is unfairly holding Yates to describing the exact dimensions and contents of the package 2 days prior to the assassination when he wouldn't have any reason to do so. Again, this aids Yates' credibility because it shows he described it to Jones as a person would 2 days prior. Instead of seeing it this way Lee holds it against Yates. Also, it could be that Ralph Yates was an authority-trusting person. It very well may be that Yates saw Wade mis-speak and say "window shades". He may then have felt the authorities had it right and he mis-remembered it as curtain rods. Lee is blinded by his doubt and doesn't see how easily these conflicts can be explained while Ralph Yates stays as true as his polygraph. To dismiss Yates' story on that alone is not as much a dismissal of Yates as it is the researcher who does it.
Like with the FBI documents, Lee comes in and tries to sell us that the Depository is yet another easily explained away coincidence in a chain of such coincidences. A chain he never links together while trying to isolate and disprove its individual members. However I think I read that Yates said he last saw this Oswald look-alike strolling towards the Book Depository. While Lee tries to disingenuously reduce this to a mere transit point a more credible detective would not miss the overwhelming significance of this location when combined with everything else. Lee makes a very weak sale in a foolishly patronizing manner. It's obvious flaw is that it fails to consider this location in combination with all the other key points. If Lee wants to contend he has disproven those points individually, so therefore he doesn't have to consider them together, I would object that he has done no such thing. He hasn't disproven that Yates picked-up this ringer at the entrance ramp. An honest person then admits the situation falls back to a general consideration of all the remaining facts. So the end result is, while Lee simply has contrived gratuitous doubt and nothing as a result, those 4 key critical pieces of evidence still best his arguments and still stand as an unignorably occurring set of critical facts. To me Lee's arguments have the feel of trying to pick out those pesky gold nuggets so we can collect the cow manure.
I think Lee's form gives him away because he seems to be arguing things that are trivial and unrelated to the main arguments. He seems to go right to the superficial or irrelevant. If he was actually trying to answer the arguments instead of evade them he would realize the significance of Yates having that conversation with Jones and how it relates to the evidence. The 3rd paragraph of the FBI Jones interview confirms without a doubt that Yates told Jones he had this conversation with the hitch-hiker on the 20th. It was part of the reason why Yates told Jones of this event upon returning to work. I don't think Lee understands it is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the evidence that Yates may have initiated the conversation about Kennedy's reception in Dallas after the Stevenson event. It doesn't make any difference. This is an example of the points Lee gravitates towards in order avoid the ones he doesn't want to recognize. What Lee doesn't include is what followed when that hitch-hiker struck-up an awkard conversation about it being possible to shoot Kennedy on his visit to Dallas from a surrounding office building. Yates felt uncomfortable with that conversation and tried to switch the topic. Boy, it sure is funny how the random transient Lee claims acted exactly like other Oswald framers when he persisted with this conversation. And since Lee practices such a high form of research we can just throw out the crashingly obvious similarity of shooting Kennedy with a high powered rifle from an office building to Milteer and the possibility that this was ongoing conspiratorial scuttlebutt amongst the assassination underground. Scuttlebutt being used by those who were framing Oswald. No need to get involved with crazy accumulative evidence speculation like that I guess.
Lee decided to avoid the Dorothy Yates issue in his response. If we were to honor that accumulative evidence we would find that Martin's evidence shows Yates passed his polygraph. Once you realize FBI lied about this it puts their documents in true perspective vs Ralph Yates. At that point anyone who ignores this while continuing to endorse FBI's records is simply relinquishing their credibility. They have reason to ignore the Dorothy Yates issue because once you realize Yates passed his polygraph it is like the final crystal being placed into the device that lights up the whole thing. Again, to argue this honestly you have to include ALL the pertinent facts and how they relate to each other. I think Lee has conspicuously failed to do that.
When examining the 4 key critical pieces of evidence that confirm Yates it is obvious that they accumulatively, in combination, create a convergence of evidence that proves Yates' story. Lee might think he's being clever but it is actually he who fails to meet the criteria of evidence in disproving those critical pieces of evidence.
For instance Lee tries to say that the entrance ramp to the Thornton Expressway was in an area common to transients who might hitch-hike with a package. Well that doesn't come close to answering the convergence of facts I showed. The truth is Oak Cliff was home to a lot of important assassination events. Oswald's boarding house was there as was the Tippit shooting. I think Jack Ruby had an apartment there as well. Lee tries to force all this out of his arguments and pretend it doesn't exist just like he tries to eliminate the true nature of FBI documents and their truthfulness. Lee asks us to shop for diamonds in bead shops. The hitch-hiker came from the right direction Lee. I think we're well in the ballpark there, despite your efforts to deny it.
I don't find Lee's approach very credible because if one was analyzing the pick-up point correctly one would have to include the fact Yates said the hitch-hiker was identical in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee ignores this and hopes his counter-arguments will suffice, however one has to remember that Yates passed a polygraph on this. Now that's damned-good for someone who Lee is contending fabricated this Oswald similarity in order to embellish his story later-on. And let's just ignore, as Lee does, the fact that many other Dallas citizens witnessed Oswald doubles trying to set-up Oswald or acting suspiciously.
Lee isn't being quite honest about the package either. He's now backed-off his previous claim that Yates only told Jones of picking-up a hitch-hiker in his normal manner. He's doing it without saying it directly or admitting it. But that's not how it works. The truth is the context of that package exists in combination with the several other key points like Oak Cliff and the Oswald look-alike. This honest evaluation, that includes all these things in combination, as it properly should, shows that a person who was confirmed as having the shooting Kennedy conversation on the 20th is a person who, if they looked like Oswald, and were trying to set him up like other look-alikes were recorded as doing, would make the significance of this package much more incriminating. Lee, of course, ignores all this and tries to force this object as simply being a non-descript package. Lee also ignores the fact Yates would have no reason to describe the package as gun-like 2 days before the assassination. In my opinion the full universe of coincidences I just pointed out precludes any such deficient analysis.
Lee once again commits a logical offense by asking why Yates didn't describe the package as either window shades or curtain rods on the 20th. I'll point-out, once again, that it is Lee who hasn't provided the credible evidence because he has yet to show why Yates would need to describe the package that way on the 20th 2 days prior to the assassination? As I pointed-out before Lee is unfairly holding Yates to describing the exact dimensions and contents of the package 2 days prior to the assassination when he wouldn't have any reason to do so. Again, this aids Yates' credibility because it shows he described it to Jones as a person would 2 days prior. Instead of seeing it this way Lee holds it against Yates. Also, it could be that Ralph Yates was an authority-trusting person. It very well may be that Yates saw Wade mis-speak and say "window shades". He may then have felt the authorities had it right and he mis-remembered it as curtain rods. Lee is blinded by his doubt and doesn't see how easily these conflicts can be explained while Ralph Yates stays as true as his polygraph. To dismiss Yates' story on that alone is not as much a dismissal of Yates as it is the researcher who does it.
Like with the FBI documents, Lee comes in and tries to sell us that the Depository is yet another easily explained away coincidence in a chain of such coincidences. A chain he never links together while trying to isolate and disprove its individual members. However I think I read that Yates said he last saw this Oswald look-alike strolling towards the Book Depository. While Lee tries to disingenuously reduce this to a mere transit point a more credible detective would not miss the overwhelming significance of this location when combined with everything else. Lee makes a very weak sale in a foolishly patronizing manner. It's obvious flaw is that it fails to consider this location in combination with all the other key points. If Lee wants to contend he has disproven those points individually, so therefore he doesn't have to consider them together, I would object that he has done no such thing. He hasn't disproven that Yates picked-up this ringer at the entrance ramp. An honest person then admits the situation falls back to a general consideration of all the remaining facts. So the end result is, while Lee simply has contrived gratuitous doubt and nothing as a result, those 4 key critical pieces of evidence still best his arguments and still stand as an unignorably occurring set of critical facts. To me Lee's arguments have the feel of trying to pick out those pesky gold nuggets so we can collect the cow manure.
I think Lee's form gives him away because he seems to be arguing things that are trivial and unrelated to the main arguments. He seems to go right to the superficial or irrelevant. If he was actually trying to answer the arguments instead of evade them he would realize the significance of Yates having that conversation with Jones and how it relates to the evidence. The 3rd paragraph of the FBI Jones interview confirms without a doubt that Yates told Jones he had this conversation with the hitch-hiker on the 20th. It was part of the reason why Yates told Jones of this event upon returning to work. I don't think Lee understands it is completely irrelevant and meaningless to the evidence that Yates may have initiated the conversation about Kennedy's reception in Dallas after the Stevenson event. It doesn't make any difference. This is an example of the points Lee gravitates towards in order avoid the ones he doesn't want to recognize. What Lee doesn't include is what followed when that hitch-hiker struck-up an awkard conversation about it being possible to shoot Kennedy on his visit to Dallas from a surrounding office building. Yates felt uncomfortable with that conversation and tried to switch the topic. Boy, it sure is funny how the random transient Lee claims acted exactly like other Oswald framers when he persisted with this conversation. And since Lee practices such a high form of research we can just throw out the crashingly obvious similarity of shooting Kennedy with a high powered rifle from an office building to Milteer and the possibility that this was ongoing conspiratorial scuttlebutt amongst the assassination underground. Scuttlebutt being used by those who were framing Oswald. No need to get involved with crazy accumulative evidence speculation like that I guess.
Lee decided to avoid the Dorothy Yates issue in his response. If we were to honor that accumulative evidence we would find that Martin's evidence shows Yates passed his polygraph. Once you realize FBI lied about this it puts their documents in true perspective vs Ralph Yates. At that point anyone who ignores this while continuing to endorse FBI's records is simply relinquishing their credibility. They have reason to ignore the Dorothy Yates issue because once you realize Yates passed his polygraph it is like the final crystal being placed into the device that lights up the whole thing. Again, to argue this honestly you have to include ALL the pertinent facts and how they relate to each other. I think Lee has conspicuously failed to do that.