Ralph Yates

[Albert Doyle]

As for Tom here, I'd advise you be a bit more understanding of his POV and effort involved. Technically the polygraph was NOT "passed" - what raises red flags for me is the repeated need to reinterview him... for a "crazy person" he sure is consistent with the story told.





If Tom could substantiate this report with the original WCD, as well the "original" interview of JR Gilpin as well as the Charlie Meat Market employee signed statement about the check, then we can have a conversation...

Tom is in denial of the evidence and doesn't give due recognition to the other incriminating evidence. Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one needing to make the adjustment here. He also champions denial of Mary Pinchot Meyer's CIA assassination against Janney. David, I'm not sure many others would be allowed to get away with such a Lone Nutter stance on this site. Especially when it is supported with such form-based weak stuff.


What is very clear, and deniers avoid like the devil, is that both Yates and SH Landesberg could not have performed the degree of higher social functions attributed to them by FBI and have been as mentally ill as they claimed. That mental illness smear is a double-edged sword that is accompanied by a necessary accountability that never seems to be done by the denier side. Landesberg could not have had the social profile he did and been the stuttering schizo at the same time and Yates could not have been such a lunatic to have hallucinated an Oswald doubles witnessing while passing a polygraph at the same time.


I disagree with your assessment about Yates' polygraph. What is most important is that the FBI agent who pulled Dorothy Yates aside said the machine showed he was telling the truth. You really have to treat those who deny this in a way that is equal to the egregious violation they commit against these victims. There's a fine line between devil's advocacy and denial. The evidence is clearly weighing towards these necessary responsible conclusions and not towards their obvious equivocations.

[Miles Scull]

As for Tom here, I'd advise you be a bit more understanding of his POV and effort involved. Technically the polygraph was NOT "passed" - what raises red flags for me is the repeated need to reinterview him... for a "crazy person" he sure is consistent with the story told.





If Tom could substantiate this report with the original WCD, as well the "original" interview of JR Gilpin as well as the Charlie Meat Market employee signed statement about the check, then we can have a conversation...

Tom is in denial of the evidence and doesn't give due recognition to the other incriminating evidence. Sorry, but I don't think I'm the one needing to make the adjustment here. He also champions denial of Mary Pinchot Meyer's CIA assassination against Janney. David, I'm not sure many others would be allowed to get away with such a Lone Nutter stance on this site. Especially when it is supported with such form-based weak stuff.


What is very clear, and deniers avoid like the devil, is that both Yates and SH Landesberg could not have performed the degree of higher social functions attributed to them by FBI and have been as mentally ill as they claimed. That mental illness smear is a double-edged sword that is accompanied by a necessary accountability that never seems to be done by the denier side. Landesberg could not have had the social profile he did and been the stuttering schizo at the same time and Yates could not have been such a lunatic to have hallucinated an Oswald doubles witnessing while passing a polygraph at the same time.


I disagree with your assessment about Yates' polygraph. What is most important is that the FBI agent who pulled Dorothy Yates aside said the machine showed he was telling the truth. You really have to treat those who deny this in a way that is equal to the egregious violation they commit against these victims. There's a fine line between devil's advocacy and denial. The evidence is clearly weighing towards these necessary responsible conclusions and not towards their obvious equivocations.

[B][B][B][B]J. Edgar Hoover termed the incident "another hoax" and asked his agents to "ascertain any evidence of mental instability on the part of Mrs. Dannelly." The Warren Commission: "Despite the apparent reputability and sincerity of the employee, all of the information she furnished in respect to OSWALD'S appearance and conversation could have been derived from the news media, consciously or unconsciously, by the time she told the FBI her story."[B]ANALYSISLee Dannelly was a credible and responsible witness. Lee Dannelly had no history of insanity nor was she someone who would perpetrate a hoax. She had encountered OSWALD. No other Selective Service employee verified her story to the FBI. Lee Dannelly commented in April 1993: "I didn't work with the draft board, I was an inspector with the Selective Service System. I'm not interested. I have talked with the FBI about this and they have told me not to do any talkin' to anybody. I have retired." [WR 732; WC Slawson notes #388 pp7-13; FBI 105-82555-888; FBI 105-2909 Austin Reps. of 12.30.63, 12.31.63; 1.2.64, 2.6.64]Gerald Posner suggested Lee Dannelly fabricated her story, using information obtained from the media. Lee Dannelly was recontacted and confronted with the allegations of Gerald Posner. She stated: "I do not lie, I do not lie!" then she hung-up.

[/B][/B][/B][/B][/B]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/nodule%2013.htm

[Tom Scully]

David,

I found this in searching less than ten seconds, using the terms together, polygraph baseline inconclusive. I am arguing what is obvious, it is wishful, ludicrous for Mr. Doyle to assert as if it was a fact that Yates is reliable because "he passed his polygraph test." Whether he posts that, or you do, it ends this particular area of discussion, because it is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, even without the additional evidence that Yates was suffering from mental illness that ended his ability to live outside of a secure institution, per his wife's own later narrative and the disease description on his death certificate.

Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?

http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx
..........
So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions. The instrument typically used to conduct polygraph tests consists of a physiological recorder that assesses three indicators of autonomic arousal: heart rate/blood pressure, respiration, and skin conductivity. Most examiners today use computerized recording systems. Rate and depth of respiration are measured by pneumographs wrapped around a subject's chest. Cardiovascular activity is assessed by a blood pressure cuff. Skin conductivity (called the galvanic skin or electrodermal response) is measured through electrodes attached to a subject's fingertips.
The recording instrument and questioning techniques are only used during a part of the polygraph examination. A typical examination includes a pretest phase during which the technique is explained and each test question reviewed. The pretest interview is designed to ensure that subjects understand the questions and to induce a subject's concern about being deceptive. Polygraph examinations often include a procedure called a "stimulation test," which is a demonstration of the instrument's accuracy in detecting deception.
Several questioning techniques are commonly used in polygraph tests. The most widely used test format for subjects in criminal incident investigations is the Control Question Test (CQT). The CQT compares responses to "relevant" questions (e.g., "Did you shoot your wife?"), with those of "control" questions. The control questions are designed to control for the effect of the generally threatening nature of relevant questions. Control questions concern misdeeds that are similar to those being investigated, but refer to the subject's past and are usually broad in scope; for example, "Have you ever betrayed anyone who trusted you?"
A person who is telling the truth is assumed to fear control questions more than relevant questions. This is because control questions are designed to arouse a subject's concern about their past truthfulness, while relevant questions ask about a crime they know they did not commit. A pattern of greater physiological response to relevant questions than to control questions leads to a diagnosis of "deception." Greater response to control questions leads to a judgment of nondeception. If no difference is found between relevant and control questions, the test result is considered "inconclusive."....

Ralph's documented polygraph test result as reported by those who administered the test to him was that his responses could not be measured because no baseline (contrast) could be established. He responded similarly to control questions at the outset, that were obvious untruths when the untruths were put to him, and also to known truthful questions. If you yearn so badly for this to have meaning other than it has, I have no alternative than to take your analysis of his polygraph test result to be unreasonable. You're making "stuff" up. In taking your position, you are leaving me with a farther reaching impression.

Mr. Doyle asked "what about" Yates's wife's 42 year old memory and recall of what an FBI agent allegedly told he about Yates's polygraph test result? I do no know what to do with that recall.
I weigh it. I consider the overall purpose of DC Dave's interview of Mrs. Yates so many years after the fact, and the emotional impact on the breakdown of her husband's mental health of Mrs. Yates and her children, shouldered by the woman during those 42 years. I compare her recall of an undocumented conversation with an unnamed FBI agent in early 1964 compared to the entire record, including the FBI report related to the polygraph test and what is included in the disease description on Yate's 1975 death certificate, and I conclude that Mrs. Yates's recall does not weigh much. i am satisfied that my conclusion about this is reasonable for the reasons i just stated. I try not to permit broader assumptions to interfere with this analysis.

And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?

Tom...

I for one can appreciate the careful and calculated way in which you approach the evidence... yet your initial assumptions that the FBI reports are reliable and representative of the investigation rather than primae facia evidence for the conspiracy itself is where, I believe, you begin your journey taking a step and building on thsoe steps into the wrong direction..........

Huh? Are you lecturing me?

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?

August, 2012:

Douglas says: (Link)
............
Are you a third party surrogate (or a direct employee) working for the USG whose mission here is to attempt to discredit the confession of a hit-man? The readers of your book review here will not have forgotten that William L. Mitchell (or someone identifying himself as this person) confessed to author Leo Damore---William L. Mitchell himself told Damore that he was Mary Meyer's murderer. This event is well-documented in Janney's book.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, via your citations, conveniently ignores this vital fact. Peter Janney has not identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer "because Mitchell could not be found," as you claim; rather, he has identified Mitchell as Meyer's murderer because Mitchell confessed this to Damore. All the citations in the world will not erase this fact.........

I had to literally force this admission.:

Tom Scully May 8, 2014 at 5:46 pm

............

Mr. Albarelli, facts are valued….
Peter Janney, published in his revised paperback edition of "Mary's Mosaic":
"The purported confessional telephone call to author Leo Damore at the end of March, 1993 by someone claiming to be Mitchell now invites some new consideration. First attorney James Smith's notes about the call, taken when Damore called Smith within hours after his converstaion with the person claiming to be Mitchell, reflected Damore's statements that William Mitchell had been married with five children and was now living under another name in Virginia. None of this appears to be true. In addition, the real William L. Mitchell was not seventy-four years old in 1993, but fifty-four. There has been so far, no indication that Mitchell ever had any liason with the FBI."


Hank Albarelli Posted 29 May 2013
"I have not read it. [My source knew Mr. Mitchell quite well and indeed still communicates and occasionally visits with him; that I passed this on to peter was entirely appropriate.} There is far more to the Mary M. story than has been released thus far…."

September 2013, author Janney in his revised edition of his book, Mary's Mosaic sequel chapter..:

.....Secondly, given what is now known about William Lockwood Mitchell, the 1993 Damore phone call also raises several new quetions: Most importantly of course, was Damore actually talking to the real William Mitchell, or someone impersonating him?.....

http://memoryholeblog.com/2014/09/05/the...hot-meyer/
September 5, 2014
........In January 2014 Janney deposed William Mitchell as part of a wrongful death civil lawsuit to procure information on Mitchell's potential responsibility for Meyer's murder. "I am still in the last stages of my research that I hope will pull the pieces together that may point to the fact that [William] Mitchell had a specific role in this event on October 12, 1964. But I do want to make clear that I no longer believe that he was the actual assassin."....

It took 25 months after I disclosed what was obvious to me in mid year 2012. Lt. William L. Mitchell was simply a witness who came forward to tell police homicide investigators what he observed while jogging on the tow path, and in his later testimony at the Ray Crump murder trial.

The resistance to the evidence I found and shared has taught me that too many people have too much invested in a belief system that does not appreciate receiving information that tends to contradict broader assumptions.

Please understand that my experience indicates the problem here is not my approach or my analysis. The problem is the clouding effect of deeply held, broad assumptions. No belief system should interfere with the work of getting to the truth.

[Miles Scull]

Hoover was deliberately seeking to discredit Yates as he had other inconvenient witnesses such as Lee Dannelly, etc., etc.

Douglass:

On January 2, 1964, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with polygraph,"[773] the instrument more commonly known as a "lie detector."

On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates's polygraph examination that day: "Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions."[774] Because his lie-detector test was inconclusive, Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.

[Tom Scully]

Hoover was deliberately seeking to discredit Yates as he had other inconvenient witnesses such as Lee Dannelly, etc., etc.

Douglass:
On January 2, 1964, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with polygraph,"[773] the instrument more commonly known as a "lie detector."

On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates's polygraph examination that day: "Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions."[774] Because his lie-detector test was inconclusive, Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.

Author Douglass has no more insight in what is his interpretation of this "urgent" communication from Hoover to the Dallas office than Mr. Scull or Mr. Scully, or anyone else has. Was the Yates
matter, which is not accompanied by the emphasis assigned to another matter displayed on the same page, a matter of great concern to director Hoover, or was it added to fill the page?

For that reason, I cannot stress enough this recent point posted by Mr. Hargrove:

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:
You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

It is reasonable to interpret the consistent reaction of Shanklin atnd Hoover to the claims of Yates was that Yates was one of many irrelevant distraction that particularly emerged and
attempted to intrude into any well publicized investigation. The steps in response to the claims
of Yates were to hold off on bothering to perform a polygraph test, to attempting the test to
rule out any value of what he claimed for the purpose of closing the Yates portion of the investigation. Routine, and therefore contrary to Douglass's description of the extraordinary.

In the second half of December, there was a decision not to perform a polygraph test on Yates.
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...8&tab=page

http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...9&tab=page

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Rec...05-53b.pdf



This is a link to a page of an "urgent" reply to the communication from Hoover that author
Douglass emphasized as supporting an opinion that Hoover was particularly concerned about
Yates's claims. Yates is mentioned on the pages before this linked page.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...2&tab=page


The lesson I take away from the WC "investigation" is that it was premised on conclusions reached before the details were obtained and then culled to support those conclusions. I shy away from that flawed approach.

[David Josephs]

David,

I found this in searching less than ten seconds, using the terms together, polygraph baseline inconclusive. I am arguing what is obvious, it is wishful, ludicrous for Mr. Doyle to assert as if it was a fact that Yates is reliable because "he passed his polygraph test." Whether he posts that, or you do, it ends this particular area of discussion, because it is an unreasonable conclusion to draw, even without the additional evidence that Yates was suffering from mental illness that ended his ability to live outside of a secure institution, per his wife's own later narrative and the disease description on his death certificate.

Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?
http://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Ralph's documented polygraph test result as reported by those who administered the test to him was that his responses could not be measured because no baseline (contrast) could be established. He responded similarly to control questions at the outset, that were obvious untruths when the untruths were put to him, and also to known truthful questions. If you yearn so badly for this to have meaning other than it has, I have no alternative than to take your analysis of his polygraph test result to be unreasonable. You're making "stuff" up. In taking your position, you are leaving me with a farther reaching impression.

Mr. Doyle asked "what about" Yates's wife's 42 year old memory and recall of what an FBI agent allegedly told he about Yates's polygraph test result? I do no know what to do with that recall.
I weigh it. I consider the overall purpose of DC Dave's interview of Mrs. Yates so many years after the fact, and the emotional impact on the breakdown of her husband's mental health of Mrs. Yates and her children, shouldered by the woman during those 42 years. I compare her recall of an undocumented conversation with an unnamed FBI agent in early 1964 compared to the entire record, including the FBI report related to the polygraph test and what is included in the disease description on Yate's 1975 death certificate, and I conclude that Mrs. Yates's recall does not weigh much. i am satisfied that my conclusion about this is reasonable for the reasons i just stated. I try not to permit broader assumptions to interfere with this analysis.

And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?

Tom...

I for one can appreciate the careful and calculated way in which you approach the evidence... yet your initial assumptions that the FBI reports are reliable and representative of the investigation rather than primae facia evidence for the conspiracy itself is where, I believe, you begin your journey taking a step and building on thsoe steps into the wrong direction..........

Huh? Are you lecturing me?

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?

----------------
Please understand that my experience indicates the problem here is not my approach or my analysis. The problem is the clouding effect of deeply held, broad assumptions. No belief system should interfere with the work of getting to the truth.

"Again, who do you expect is your audience, is taking you seriously?"

"And, you're burning up your "cred," David. Are these particular arguments really important enough to risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?"

"My methodology is responsive to results I have been able to achieve. How is yours working for you?"

"Huh? Are you lecturing me?"

Tom - That you believe what the FBI and their reports say about those who had offered conflicting evidence for the existence of duplicity in many areas of the case is burning up your "cred"...

There is not a single case of duplicity with the Oswalds which is not countered in some way by the FBi involving the standard responses - mental illness, after the fact relaying of info in the public domain for recognition, or just plainly that the witness is wrong.


I am glad you were so instrumental in adding clarity to the Mary's Mosaic situation... this is not that situation.

I never said he "passed or failed" in fact I posted that wasn't the way polygraphs work. I imagine those reading my work understood and do t[B]ake me seriously - what kind of screwed up question is that to ask me Tom?
[/B]
As for my "cred"... and your impaired neutral assumptions, followed by yet another insulting question.
Have you read my work on Mexico? Judy Baker? Oswald's plan to assassinate?
It's all working out just fine, thank you. (unless you're the only one getting "I got it right" stars on your JFK wallchart of success... I didn't get any gold stars)

As for the lecture - you're dam right I'm lecturing you. Until you understand the context of the FBI of 1963 (and the 20 years prior and 10 years post) it appears to me that you believe whatever they put in their reports and what they say in their testimonies (FAITH again). That their allegiance is to the USA and not Hoover's good ole FBI and their careers. And then if the report or statement involves those outside the FBI it is reliable and authentic.

C'mon Tom... WAKE UP.

Does the FBI offer anything to substantiate YATE's mental condition?
-------------

Addressing your tangents:

(you posted this about the "note" - it does not enter your realm of possibility that Kyle is covering his a$$ and those of his FBI. That there is little reason for Ms Fenner to improvise a note delivery yet, after the fact, the FBI's brass would not want to make sure this was seen as a falsehood by an underling.

Okay, so far? Nothing to it, right? Case closed. Oh! One more thing.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/ar...2&relPageId=32

I noticed in your post about the note you do not mention Kenneth Howe... p23 from the same document you linked to... more proof the note existed and that Kyle and Shanklin are CYAing.

It's hard to understand what you are saying regarding the note... are you claiming that the FBI will not fabricate evidence if those outside the FBI are involved? As that is what I get from this last passage you wrote:

"Shanklin and Kyle Clark could contradict Hosty and Fenner under oath before a high profile investigation and all could walk out after and get on with their careers. it is a different matter when an agent in a local office or a SAIC of that local office falsely quotes a member of the public, or several members, in documents they sign and file or distribute to other local office and to FBI HQ."

So because the FBI spoke to his wife the info about YATES is golden? Please explain your position so it is easily understandable Tom... talking about "cred"... packing posts with enough ancillary info thru links that it takes days just to figure out what you're saying has even me shaking my head in wonder. The depth is fantastic yet we are here looking to you - assuming you;ve read all this info - to present you synopsis... HOW do all these links tie together into what YOU think. If you can't commit to a conclusion at least take the time to illustrate the connections are are trying to establish...
-------------
Now why would the FBI add this to their report on YATES? Only to go so far out of their way to discredit the man as to have him committed... ?

So if you can post or link to info you have related to YATES and state plainly what you believe happened there - it would be appreciated. on the other hand, if you feel you "risk impairing the neutral assumptions I would otherwise approach future discusssions with you?" then approach with whatever assumptions you want. I take people at their word and for what they post.

So let's stay on topic - YATES' mental stability and how it goes from this in Dec to locking him away. And how he would have known the info he conveyed to his friend Dempsey Jones the same day...

If I have misunderstood your approach, please help me understand as I have always considered you a good source and a serious researcher... if not, then we need to have a serious discussion about the evidence in this case and what it is you believe occurred.

[Tom Scully]

David,

No, this is not Mary's Mosaic. If I did not know that, I know it now because my discovery of the lack of documentation of a 3 AM interview inside WMCA radio studios by Barry Gray, is not a discovery that there is any particular interest in having to deal with.

I sometimes am amazed at how a belief system affects receptiveness to consideration of new facts.

You seem to have missed my entire point in presenting details of my old post documenting the exposure of the lack of integrity related to the JFK Assassination in the Dallas FBI office. Even
reading it in your last post, I am still astounded that you seem to think I was saying the opposite of what I attempted to say. I have to take some responsibility for your misinterpretaion, so now I'll attempt to make it unambiguous.

I tried to show Mr. Doyle, via the Oswald note cover up example, that it is one thing for the SAIC and ASAIC, Shanklin and Clark, of the Dallas office, to conspire to suppress the truth that Hosty had been trapped into disclosing by Ms. Fenner and the HSCA, and it is quite another matter to attempt to smear Ralph Yates for the rest of his life, up to and including a result in which the word schizophrenia appeared on his death certificate. I even supported this with the example of
the closeness of the CIA men who seemed to have driven Frank Olson out of a ten story high window of an NYC hotel. Lashbrook and Gottlieb were close personally, as supported in the fact I included, Gottlieb was in Lashbrook's wedding party not long after Olson's murder.

The perjury of Shanklin and Clark in their HSCA testimony was calculated and not absurd. The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd. It is reasonable upon consideration of the known record, including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity.

I come to this using the same discernment methods I used in the missing CIA assassin of Mary Meyer claim, and the assumption that Barry Gray met James F Rizzuto in an in person late night interview and thus knew he was a different individual than Yves L'eandes.

You imply that I am somehow not equipped to accurately weigh the details in FBI reports, but you, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scull, Hargrove, Armstrong, somehow have the right stuff to glean the truth from them.

I advised you to pick your shots. You are taking a leap of faith in claiming that the Yates controversy is a good example of FBI assassination cover up conspiracy. I think instead it exposes weakness in your broader discernment. If I was going to stick my neck out by risking my credibility over an important controversy, this certainly would not be one that I would embrace.
In contrast, I think the perjury of Shanklin and Clark in reaction to Ms. Fenner and Hosty over their testimony about the Oswald note is an incredibly strong and persuasive example.
Fred Olson's leap from the hotel window is a great example of the depths of depravity inside the CIA. If they would subject one of their own to involuntary drugging and dropping out of a tall building, what are they capable of doing to any one of us?

What is your take on this? Does it not imply that Armstrong knows how to use primary sources,
but Tom Scully does not, or do you agree with me that it makes little sense and is hypocritical?:

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said: You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

[Albert Doyle]

Anyone who defends FBI at their word against Ralph Yates isn't credible in my opinion. I have asked Mr Scully many times in several posts to please explain his official position on FBI's coverage of Lee Harvey Oswald from those very same reports. Scully refuses to do it because he realizes that he will have to explain why he rejects FBI's word in one case and accepts it in another, even though there is zero difference between the two.


The FBI agent who did the polygraph told Dorothy Yates that the machine showed Ralph was telling the truth. Somehow Scully wants us to accept his putting himself before Dorothy Yates, who was there and had the trauma of her husband's commitment and death burned into her mind. He wants us to accept his suggestion that 42 years makes that memory invalid and therefore makes his specious arguments superior.


Scully makes no attempt to answer how a person who was experiencing so much stress over his story that he was committed to a mental institution for it managed to smoothly pass a lie detector test on the information therein?


Scully also makes no attempt to answer why FBI did not practice normal procedure to see if there was a credible reason why Yates passed the lie detector test. Surely the world class investigative agency had heard of doubles being used in covert operations before?

On January 2, 1964, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover sent a teletype marked "URGENT" to Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin on Ralph Leon Yates. Hoover noted that a previous FBI investigation into whether Yates may have been at his company at the same time he said he picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker provided insufficient evidence "to completely discredit Yates' story." Hoover therefore ordered the Dallas FBI office to "reinterview Yates with polygraph,"[773] the instrument more commonly known as a "lie detector."

On January 4 in another "URGENT" teletype, Shanklin reported back to Hoover on Yates's polygraph examination that day: "Results of test were inconclusive as Yates responded to neither relevant or control type questions."[774] Because his lie-detector test was inconclusive, Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.

Douglass makes a mistake here by accepting FBI's file description of Yates' polygraph being "inconclusive". He should refer to the more pertinent evidence of Dorothy Yates saying the FBI agent told her Ralph passed the test.

Deep Politics researchers should be smart in their treatment of the evidence. The reason FBI didn't test Yates on picking up the check and nail him on it on the lie detector is because FBI knew the more it probed that story the more Yates would prove to be credible. It is clear from Hoover's reaction that he considered this urgent because he knew that a potentially serious breach to the official story existed in Yates. He went after it with the intention of destroying it which is proof of malfeasance on its own.



.

[David Josephs]

David,

No, this is not Mary's Mosaic. If I did not know that, I know it now because my discovery of the lack of documentation of a 3 AM interview inside WMCA radio studios by Barry Gray, is not a discovery that there is any particular interest in having to deal with.

I sometimes am amazed at how a belief system affects receptiveness to consideration of new facts.

You seem to have missed my entire point in presenting details of my old post documenting the exposure of the lack of integrity related to the JFK Assassination in the Dallas FBI office. Even
reading it in your last post, I am still astounded that you seem to think I was saying the opposite of what I attempted to say. I have to take some responsibility for your misinterpretaion, so now I'll attempt to make it unambiguous.

I tried to show Mr. Doyle, via the Oswald note cover up example, that it is one thing for the SAIC and ASAIC, Shanklin and Clark, of the Dallas office, to conspire to suppress the truth that Hosty had been trapped into disclosing by Ms. Fenner and the HSCA, and it is quite another matter to attempt to smear Ralph Yates for the rest of his life, up to and including a result in which the word schizophrenia appeared on his death certificate. I even supported this with the example of
the closeness of the CIA men who seemed to have driven Frank Olson out of a ten story high window of an NYC hotel. Lashbrook and Gottlieb were close personally, as supported in the fact I included, Gottlieb was in Lashbrook's wedding party not long after Olson's murder.

The perjury of Shanklin and Clark in their HSCA testimony was calculated and not absurd. The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd. It is reasonable upon consideration of the known record, including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity.

I come to this using the same discernment methods I used in the missing CIA assassin of Mary Meyer claim, and the assumption that Barry Gray met James F Rizzuto in an in person late night interview and thus knew he was a different individual than Yves L'eandes.

You imply that I am somehow not equipped to accurately weigh the details in FBI reports, but you, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Scull, Hargrove, Armstrong, somehow have the right stuff to glean the truth from them.

I advised you to pick your shots. You are taking a leap of faith in claiming that the Yates controversy is a good example of FBI assassination cover up conspiracy. I think instead it exposes weakness in your broader discernment. If I was going to stick my neck out by risking my credibility over an important controversy, this certainly would not be one that I would embrace.
In contrast, I think the perjury of Shanklin and Clark in reaction to Ms. Fenner and Hosty over their testimony about the Oswald note is an incredibly strong and persuasive example.
Fred Olson's leap from the hotel window is a great example of the depths of depravity inside the CIA. If they would subject one of their own to involuntary drugging and dropping out of a tall building, what are they capable of doing to any one of us?

What is your take on this? Does it not imply that Armstrong knows how to use primary sources,
but Tom Scully does not, or do you agree with me that it makes little sense and is hypocritical?:

Jim Hargrove, on 21 Jul 2015 - 09:53 AM, said: You didn't point out the FBI claims for the "3 am interview." Tom Scully did on another forum.

Almost all of John's notes for Harvey and Lee are from original source documents. He should go back to that method and approach secondary sources with extreme caution, as he did previously.

Tom... I understood what you were saying

Here's a thought, how about we both not bother advising each other on our POVs or which "shots" to take or how our "cred" is... K? You want to know what Jim or John meant, ask them please. As for me, it appears you are reacting over sensitively to this dicussion.

At the core of your response is your disbelief in YATES' story. That somehow he knew details of the assassination 2 days prior to the event based on this hitchhiker pick-up story, that he conveyed these details 2 days prior to a friend... and yet you believe his claims are absurd.

But you never explain why you feel that way given the evidence or"known record" as you call it. What I see is a Dec report in which the FBI gets it's "mental illness" question answered - No history of mental illness - a back problem. I see Hoover ordering his agents to discredit Yates' story (how does Hoover know about the two Oswald's Tom?) I see the man being told he is crazy and being put away for shock therapy at the behest of the FBI who is the central figure in the cover-up of the conspiracy to kill JFK

Instead you talk about an internal FBI issue as if these people check their subterfuge at the door - and you don't see that as absurd on its face? The FBI goes from investigation mode to disappear the man mode while painting him crazy. And yet you repeatedly put the blame on YATES.... ??

You wrote this - right Tom?
"The claims of Ralph Yates and ensuing FBI smear to discredit him are absurd."

" I[B]t is reasonable upon consideration of the known record,[/B] including the details in DC Dave's recent examination of the Yates contoversy, to conclude that Yates discredited his own claims and general integrity."

From what do you arrive at this conclusion Tom for it surely was not the article I just read... and since when is "DC DAVE" the acknowledged expert on everything JFK? When in reality it was Douglass' book he was simply quoting?

I went to see the DC Dave article you spoke of http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120418.htm (the only one that comes up for "YATES" when the site is searched - in fact his 2006 to present archive does not have any article with YATES inthe title ?!?)

According to this 2012 article, DC Dave appears to be saying the FBI is to blame for using the "mental illness" card once again to silence a truthful wintess to the existence of two Oswalds.

"Army cryptographer Dinkin had very good
reason to believe that he was taking a real risk when he tried to prevent
President John F. Kennedy's assassination by revealing the plans for it that he
had discovered. So he might not have been completely surprised when they ended
up throwing him into a mental institution. But consider the case of poor Ralph
Leon Yates, who must have thought that the information he volunteered about a
man he thought to be Lee Harvey Oswald would be helpful to the government. "

DC does not support the YATES is crazy conclusion you keep fostering at all when comapring him to others who were aware or witnessed conflict with the official record and kept quiet (Vinson)

"Only the FBI knew why Ralph Yates needed to be taken seriously. Not even Yates himself, who had no sense of an Oswald double, understood the significance of what he felt compelled to say for the rest of his life. Only the Federal Bureau of Investigation recognized the importance of his testimony, with the threat it posed to the government's case against Oswald. If evidence surfaced of the Oswald-like hitchhiker, who delivered his "curtain rods" to the Depository two days before the assassination, it would have preempted and brought into question the government-endorsed curtain rods story, as given by Buell Wesley Frazier. Thanks to the bungling redundancy of cover stories, the plot to kill the president was again in danger of exposure."

Tom - please state your position in this case.. do you think Oswald is guilty of something? The FBI innocent of anything? The SS and CIA and I&NS not in league with these two other agencies to foster a cover-up at any expense including the commitment of a Secret Service Agent?

Where do YOU stand and what are YOU trying to prove here?

Thanks
DJ

[Miles Scull]

[quote=Tom Scully]

Where do YOU stand and what are YOU trying to prove here?

Thanks
DJ

Full Definition of SOLIPSISM

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

::laughingdog::