01-04-2013, 04:20 PM
It's almost like Miles read my mind because I was going to mention that there is actually a 5th key piece of evidence here. Yates said the hitch-hiker kept asserting this awkward conversation even though he tried to change the subject. Once you realize the hitch-hiker persisted at engaging this conversation he fits the profile of other descriptions of Oswald-framers in Dallas going out of their way to make sure those they were spooking got the message. So technically this is a 5th example of corroborated factors. Lee tries to question this piecemeal but the obvious fact is, when viewed correctly in combination, they constitute a convergence of evidence beyond chance. The statistical odds of these factors being coincidence is impossible which is why Lee refuses to recognize this directly. I'm sorry but we don't need to see Dorothy Yates' testimony verbatim at this point. This is proof in my opinion.
Add to this already credible proof the fact Yates passed a lie detector test and you are standing squarely within firm proof. What Lee fails to allow is the fact Dorothy said the FBI agent told her Ralph passed the test. Doubting Lee says he needs to see the transcript. Again, indirectly calling Dorothy Yates and Martin liars. It's a simple thing. Yates passed the lie detector test but FBI couldn't admit this under Hoover's clandestine directive. FBI sought to discredit the entire test itself by saying Yates failed to register on the test questions. In Lee's ham-handed analysis he fails to see the necessary subtle clues here that FBI is seeking to discredit the entire test by throwing it out because it failed to meet even the basic criteria of test questions. You have to imagine that FBI asked Yates questions like "Did the hitch-hiker resemble Oswald?" and "Was the package long and shaped like curtain rods?" and, finally, "Did the hitch-hiker say they were curtain rods?" After these questions were answered and registered on the polygraph an FBI agent told Dorothy Yates Ralph had passed the test. I assume this means the polygraph confirmed these questions. So really, a true and more honest analysis would show Yates showed positive results on some very damning questions that put us even further into the realm of established fact. When an FBI agent pulls you aside and tells you your husband passed the polygraph and then they enter in their record that the test results were inconclusive you have to think they're trying to hide something. This doesn't bother Lee Farley.
What Farley is doing, like Lone Nutters, is he's trying to string together a long thread of incredible coincidences against the more pertinent facts. I cannot understand any assassination researcher who would have the bad lack of sense to go after an obvious victim like Ralph Yates. In this scenario you end up with a situation of defiant contrarian coincidences being demanded vs the common sense interpretation of undeniable key pieces of critical evidence. God help anyone who doesn't have the sense to see that or distinguish between the two. It's a fool's folly that only aids FBI in their evil purpose.
Add to this already credible proof the fact Yates passed a lie detector test and you are standing squarely within firm proof. What Lee fails to allow is the fact Dorothy said the FBI agent told her Ralph passed the test. Doubting Lee says he needs to see the transcript. Again, indirectly calling Dorothy Yates and Martin liars. It's a simple thing. Yates passed the lie detector test but FBI couldn't admit this under Hoover's clandestine directive. FBI sought to discredit the entire test itself by saying Yates failed to register on the test questions. In Lee's ham-handed analysis he fails to see the necessary subtle clues here that FBI is seeking to discredit the entire test by throwing it out because it failed to meet even the basic criteria of test questions. You have to imagine that FBI asked Yates questions like "Did the hitch-hiker resemble Oswald?" and "Was the package long and shaped like curtain rods?" and, finally, "Did the hitch-hiker say they were curtain rods?" After these questions were answered and registered on the polygraph an FBI agent told Dorothy Yates Ralph had passed the test. I assume this means the polygraph confirmed these questions. So really, a true and more honest analysis would show Yates showed positive results on some very damning questions that put us even further into the realm of established fact. When an FBI agent pulls you aside and tells you your husband passed the polygraph and then they enter in their record that the test results were inconclusive you have to think they're trying to hide something. This doesn't bother Lee Farley.
What Farley is doing, like Lone Nutters, is he's trying to string together a long thread of incredible coincidences against the more pertinent facts. I cannot understand any assassination researcher who would have the bad lack of sense to go after an obvious victim like Ralph Yates. In this scenario you end up with a situation of defiant contrarian coincidences being demanded vs the common sense interpretation of undeniable key pieces of critical evidence. God help anyone who doesn't have the sense to see that or distinguish between the two. It's a fool's folly that only aids FBI in their evil purpose.