11-07-2014, 03:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-07-2014, 02:45 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Yates was a person who was witnessed by Dempsey Jones telling the story of the weird shooting the president from an office building with a high powered rifle hitch-hiker. The reason he was committed was because he refused to back down from what he knew to be true. FBI tested Yates straight without doctoring the polygraph like they did with Ruby. The give-away is that FBI's questions to Dempsey Jones were designed to malign Yates and question his character. A thing seen with other witnesses who were a danger to the cover-up.
The reason the polygraph is valid is because Dempsey Jones witnessed Yates telling the story in advance. That gives it credibility and a second witness for those interested in honestly evaluating the case. Blind doubters avoid giving any direct answer to this and always seek some sort of forced sophist out (not you Drew) just like they conspicuously avoid admitting that the curtain rod story didn't necessarily originate from Frazier. While loudly protesting this isn't evidence those dishonest doubters don't admit their case is even weaker and ignores the grain of the evidence. They also ignore a pattern of FBI doing this in other areas of the assassination. If the plotters could set-up a brown paper wrapper, like they did, it is not as far-fetched as they protest that those same plotters could formulate a curtain rod story. If you want to see where the truth lay just look at where the doubters troll the loudest. I think most smart people would be able to see a dishonest liar pretending he is really wanting to get to the truth when his means of doing that is ignoring the obvious. The FBI man told Dorothy Yates Ralph passed the polygraph and it showed he was telling the truth (because he was). Only a fool would join with FBI and their criminal Gestapo tactics in breaking a real witness. The lack of fear or hesitation on the behalf of those great sophist doubters has a Nazi sort of vibe. Sort of like a pack of jackals going after a victim for the shear evil of it.
Ye shall know them by their trolling...
The reason the polygraph is valid is because Dempsey Jones witnessed Yates telling the story in advance. That gives it credibility and a second witness for those interested in honestly evaluating the case. Blind doubters avoid giving any direct answer to this and always seek some sort of forced sophist out (not you Drew) just like they conspicuously avoid admitting that the curtain rod story didn't necessarily originate from Frazier. While loudly protesting this isn't evidence those dishonest doubters don't admit their case is even weaker and ignores the grain of the evidence. They also ignore a pattern of FBI doing this in other areas of the assassination. If the plotters could set-up a brown paper wrapper, like they did, it is not as far-fetched as they protest that those same plotters could formulate a curtain rod story. If you want to see where the truth lay just look at where the doubters troll the loudest. I think most smart people would be able to see a dishonest liar pretending he is really wanting to get to the truth when his means of doing that is ignoring the obvious. The FBI man told Dorothy Yates Ralph passed the polygraph and it showed he was telling the truth (because he was). Only a fool would join with FBI and their criminal Gestapo tactics in breaking a real witness. The lack of fear or hesitation on the behalf of those great sophist doubters has a Nazi sort of vibe. Sort of like a pack of jackals going after a victim for the shear evil of it.
Ye shall know them by their trolling...