20-06-2015, 04:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 20-06-2015, 07:32 PM by Albert Doyle.)
The Ralph Yates story has now been hijacked by a certain rogue assassination personality who is gaining credibility from researchers who should know better. This personality is now saying Ralph Yates was a latent homosexual who was in Oak Cliff for homosexual purposes and that is why he was reticent to tell FBI why he was there. This perspective once again relies heavily on FBI as a credible source and never once recognizes that FBI was a dedicated enemy of Ralph Yates and trying to destroy him and his credibility like they did to so many other assassination witnesses.
This new angle suggests that Crafard and Yates were in Oak Cliff for homosexual purposes involving Jack Ruby. Some quick points would be why, if Yates was in Oak Cliff for that reason, would he go in and beg doom by initiating the subject with FBI, a group that could only expose his so-called secret? This personality is suggesting Yates' cracking-up was caused by the stress of not being able to reveal this and possibly exposing himself. So Yates then was a loyal patriot risking personal destruction to back a fallen president. So not only would Yates be exposing himself to exposure by means of one of the best agencies in the nation capable of doing so but he would have to know he was threatening Jack Ruby and company. Yates' FBI interaction happened after Ruby shot Oswald and Crafard was still out there. So not only would Yates be risking exposure by FBI but also personal harm from Crafard who might not like being outed in this situation.
This is typical of this person to create such a wind-blown tale while ignoring all that which makes it unlikely. First of all, if Crafard was this Yates "Oswald" then why didn't the employees and witnesses at the Carousel notice the difference between Crafard and the man witnesses saw Ruby refer to as "Ozzie" when he entered the Carousel's back door? You would think people might wonder why Ruby was calling Crafard "Ozzie"? The Crafard Oswald makes sense when denial drives a fantasy scenario, but common facts like these dispel this fantastic interpretation. The manic need to destroy Ralph Yates for bombastic assassination research sensation purposes makes Crafard Oswald in direct proportion to the need to avoid that evidence which disproves it. Meanwhile it is highly unlikely that Crafard's outward differences from Oswald like his missing front teeth and scruffy appearance would be missed by those viewing him. It defies common sense that this Carousel employee who was hired and known as Crafard could then be called Oswald without someone noticing. Better researchers will notice the subtle differences between the Carousel Oswald and Crafard.
Another thing this personality ignores is the fact that if Yates was driven to the point of mental breakdown because he could not reveal that he knew of all this business because he was in a homosexual group involving Ruby and Crafard, that it would be very unlikely that this stress didn't show up on his FBI polygraph. The stress being referred to is chronic and of a type that the subtle detection technology of a polygraph would not be likely to miss. Nor would FBI not be likely to take advantage of it. Of course, when you're using FBI and their word against the victim you can just ignore this fatal conflict. This personality suggests that even though this stress drove Yates to a mental hospital that it wasn't detected or pointed out by FBI on his polygraph. Also, why would Ruby and Crafard risk blowing the whole operation by openly exposing their plan to a man who might go and tell the FBI? Not only does this grind against Ruby's otherwise fairly tight omerta, but it also would have put Ruby at risk of being killed for this breach. This personality is suggesting Ruby and Crafard openly exposed their setting-up of Oswald by showing Yates that they were in possession of backyard photos and knowledge of how the assassination would be done prior to the actual assassination. This is just plain poor detective work, yet some very high up and credible researchers swallow it without seeing its obvious flaws.
Finally, if it was Crafard and he was headed to the Carousel then why did he walk the opposite direction from the Carousel and towards the Depository when Yates dropped him off? Why was Crafard carrying a rifle wrapped in brown paper towards the Depository front entrance? This personality knows there's something wrong with this because he inserts a (?) next to it in his entry. This personality claims Yates fabricated the walk towards the Depository in order to cover-up a homosexual tryst at the Carousel occurring at the end of this ride. Funny how the polygraph missed that and gave it a pass. This walk on the wild side Yates should be obvious as the nuttery it is. Why people don't call it is strange. Almost certainly Yates was a heterosexual happily married to Dorothy Yates. This defamation of Yates in order to distort his witnessing is typical of COINTELPRO tactics.
This personality says that Yates' failure to mention the specifics of the rifle wrapped in paper prior to the assassination is a sign of his lack of credibility but this is, once again, poor detective work because Yates had no reason to describe the package in detail prior to the assassination because it had no context then. This personality is holding Yates accountable for things he had no reason to suspect or gather details on prior to the assassination. When Yates was queried on this by FBI he passed a lie detector test on it. Would Yates go to his bitter end in a mental hospital while withholding this explosive alleged relationship? Would he not release the non-homosexual part of this relationship in order to save himself? No, the psychological forensics of Yates' collapse is one of not being able to handle an agency sworn to honest upholding of law serving a criminal cover-up. Like HAL in 2001.
The Ralph Yates story is a delicate one that should not be handled by brutes with caveman clubs but should instead be handled like brain surgery in a china shop. This personality offers a toothless tale.
.
This new angle suggests that Crafard and Yates were in Oak Cliff for homosexual purposes involving Jack Ruby. Some quick points would be why, if Yates was in Oak Cliff for that reason, would he go in and beg doom by initiating the subject with FBI, a group that could only expose his so-called secret? This personality is suggesting Yates' cracking-up was caused by the stress of not being able to reveal this and possibly exposing himself. So Yates then was a loyal patriot risking personal destruction to back a fallen president. So not only would Yates be exposing himself to exposure by means of one of the best agencies in the nation capable of doing so but he would have to know he was threatening Jack Ruby and company. Yates' FBI interaction happened after Ruby shot Oswald and Crafard was still out there. So not only would Yates be risking exposure by FBI but also personal harm from Crafard who might not like being outed in this situation.
This is typical of this person to create such a wind-blown tale while ignoring all that which makes it unlikely. First of all, if Crafard was this Yates "Oswald" then why didn't the employees and witnesses at the Carousel notice the difference between Crafard and the man witnesses saw Ruby refer to as "Ozzie" when he entered the Carousel's back door? You would think people might wonder why Ruby was calling Crafard "Ozzie"? The Crafard Oswald makes sense when denial drives a fantasy scenario, but common facts like these dispel this fantastic interpretation. The manic need to destroy Ralph Yates for bombastic assassination research sensation purposes makes Crafard Oswald in direct proportion to the need to avoid that evidence which disproves it. Meanwhile it is highly unlikely that Crafard's outward differences from Oswald like his missing front teeth and scruffy appearance would be missed by those viewing him. It defies common sense that this Carousel employee who was hired and known as Crafard could then be called Oswald without someone noticing. Better researchers will notice the subtle differences between the Carousel Oswald and Crafard.
Another thing this personality ignores is the fact that if Yates was driven to the point of mental breakdown because he could not reveal that he knew of all this business because he was in a homosexual group involving Ruby and Crafard, that it would be very unlikely that this stress didn't show up on his FBI polygraph. The stress being referred to is chronic and of a type that the subtle detection technology of a polygraph would not be likely to miss. Nor would FBI not be likely to take advantage of it. Of course, when you're using FBI and their word against the victim you can just ignore this fatal conflict. This personality suggests that even though this stress drove Yates to a mental hospital that it wasn't detected or pointed out by FBI on his polygraph. Also, why would Ruby and Crafard risk blowing the whole operation by openly exposing their plan to a man who might go and tell the FBI? Not only does this grind against Ruby's otherwise fairly tight omerta, but it also would have put Ruby at risk of being killed for this breach. This personality is suggesting Ruby and Crafard openly exposed their setting-up of Oswald by showing Yates that they were in possession of backyard photos and knowledge of how the assassination would be done prior to the actual assassination. This is just plain poor detective work, yet some very high up and credible researchers swallow it without seeing its obvious flaws.
Finally, if it was Crafard and he was headed to the Carousel then why did he walk the opposite direction from the Carousel and towards the Depository when Yates dropped him off? Why was Crafard carrying a rifle wrapped in brown paper towards the Depository front entrance? This personality knows there's something wrong with this because he inserts a (?) next to it in his entry. This personality claims Yates fabricated the walk towards the Depository in order to cover-up a homosexual tryst at the Carousel occurring at the end of this ride. Funny how the polygraph missed that and gave it a pass. This walk on the wild side Yates should be obvious as the nuttery it is. Why people don't call it is strange. Almost certainly Yates was a heterosexual happily married to Dorothy Yates. This defamation of Yates in order to distort his witnessing is typical of COINTELPRO tactics.
This personality says that Yates' failure to mention the specifics of the rifle wrapped in paper prior to the assassination is a sign of his lack of credibility but this is, once again, poor detective work because Yates had no reason to describe the package in detail prior to the assassination because it had no context then. This personality is holding Yates accountable for things he had no reason to suspect or gather details on prior to the assassination. When Yates was queried on this by FBI he passed a lie detector test on it. Would Yates go to his bitter end in a mental hospital while withholding this explosive alleged relationship? Would he not release the non-homosexual part of this relationship in order to save himself? No, the psychological forensics of Yates' collapse is one of not being able to handle an agency sworn to honest upholding of law serving a criminal cover-up. Like HAL in 2001.
The Ralph Yates story is a delicate one that should not be handled by brutes with caveman clubs but should instead be handled like brain surgery in a china shop. This personality offers a toothless tale.
.