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.
22-06-2015, 04:15 AM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015, 05:08 AM by Albert Doyle.)
If you read the above Greg Parker claims that Yates, Ruby, and Crafard were homosexuals and that was the reason for Ralph Yates' trip to Oak Cliff where he picked up the hitch-hiker (whom he claims was Crafard). Greg seems rather dumb because he isn't computing that this doesn't jibe with Yates' story that the hitch-hiker showed him backyard pictures of Oswald, carried a rifle in a brown paper bag, and openly mentioned shooting Kennedy from an office building with a high-powered rifle. How does a homosexual meeting turn into this?
Greg has serious research retardation because he isn't computing into his grotesque calculation that Dempsey Jones confirmed to FBI that Yates did indeed tell him this hitch-hiker had spoken of the exact same subject of shooting Kennedy from a high building just like Jones and Yates had discussed before. Parker practices a Fetzer/Cinque approach where you change the entire reality of the witnessing to fit your theory. So in order to make his bizarre homosexual clan theory work Parker ignores these key pieces of evidence.
It just doesn't make sense that if Yates was in that situation that he would decide to fabricate a tale of a hitch-hiker and decide to handle it that way. That scenario is very forced and bears the aura of contrivance to the point of credulity. Parker knows he's in trouble with this which is why he responds by doubling down on the craziness. He's straight-facedly suggesting that Yates learned of all this through his homosexual activity with Ruby and Crafard and with all at stake decided to handle it by inventing the hitch-hiker story. You can see how Parker continues to grow this incredible homosexual theory in direct proportion to his need to ignore how it clashes with all the rest of the evidence. It doesn't crunch that Yates would be having sex with Crafard but then accuse him of being Oswald. How do you have homosexual sex with someone, Greg, and miss the fact that they are missing their front teeth? Remember Greg Parker is a great condemner of bad research. Why then does Yates go and try to convince the FBI this guy is Oswald? That doesn't make sense.
The problem with all this, that Parker will never admit, and is trying to ignore away, is that FBI gave a lie detector test on the particulars of the hitch-hiker experience to Yates and he passed it. It's funny how such a whopper of a lie managed to get by the polygraph.
It doesn't wash that Yates wouldn't get a good look at Crafard's missing teeth. Remember the hitch-hiker was discussing a seriously disturbing topic. Parker suggests that even though Crafard was allegedly discussing if it would be possible to kill Kennedy on his upcoming trip that Yates never once shot a look over at Crafard and saw his missing teeth. You know, when a hitch-hiker speaks of killing the president there's no need to look over and see if he's nuts. Parker knows it isn't likely that Yates would miss Crafard's missing teeth so he pushes the homosexual angle to cover it. It's an obvious device to compensate for the weakness of his theory.
I don't understand what part of the FBI telling Dorothy Yates that Ralph passed the lie detector test, and that it showed that he thought what he was saying was true, Parker doesn't get? And Parker asks us to side with the FBI and take their word on their interpretation of this? He also asks us to ignore that the passed polygraph confirms the details of the rifle, backyard photos, conversation, and, most importantly, the unknown hitch-hiker. Parker needs to directly answer how Yates could be cracking up from stress over his homosexual activity with Crafard and calmly passing a lie detector test showing this man to be a hitch-hiker and stranger at the same time? When you pull Parker in from his blowhard manic attacks and make him discuss detail he quickly falls apart. The way Parker deals with things like this is to ignore you, turn up the wind, and blow harder.
Finally Parker ignores how his Yates tale has seriously drifted from its original form. The original version had Yates fabricating the entire thing because of mental illness. Like his Oswalt theory that didn't quite work, so he's now altering it to include the mental illness but only in the context of this new homosexual love nest.
Parker's trick is pretending that because he claims he has covered something that therefore it has been disproven and he doesn't have to discuss it. You can see from the above that isn't true and the original story he bastardizes and ignores still holds true and still requires serious answers. Answers he never gives.
22-06-2015, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 22-06-2015, 01:48 PM by Dawn Meredith.)
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:
Keith Millea Wrote:Albert,
Seeing as you're having a one-way debate here which involves another forum and their members.I suggest you get in touch with John Simpkin and see if you can join his forum.You know,like having a real honest discussion/debate.
So mods,are cross forum debates the new normal now? :noblesteed:
Keith - thank you.
Cross forum debates are not the new normal here at DPF, and we would only allow a link to the Swamp in the most exceptional and putrid of circumstances.
Albert - if you want to debate comments made by the tool Von Pein at the Education Forum, kindly take a dive into the Black Lagoon....
Agreed. Let's listen to Keith and Jan. Albert I was about to suggest that you just put the information out there, not continually say "Farley wrongly believes/says " this or that. What someone says on another forum needs to remain there, or be debated there.
Dawn
This goes for what Parker says too. If you don't want him attacking you don't refer to his research skills as "retarded". If posters here do not want to comment on your posts on this matter so be it but please refrain from "debating" those who are not members here.
Thank you.
Albert Doyle Wrote:...............
...................
I don't understand what part of the FBI telling Dorothy Yates that Ralph passed the lie detector test, and that it showed that he thought what he was saying was true, Parker doesn't get? And Parker asks us to side with the FBI and take their word on their interpretation of this? He also asks us to ignore that the passed polygraph confirms the details of the rifle, backyard photos, conversation, and, most importantly, the unknown hitch-hiker. Parker needs to directly answer how Yates could be cracking up from stress over his homosexual activity with Crafard and calmly passing a lie detector test showing this man to be a hitch-hiker and stranger at the same time? When you pull Parker in from his blowhard manic attacks and make him discuss detail he quickly falls apart. The way Parker deals with things like this is to ignore you, turn up the wind, and blow harder.
Finally Parker ignores how his Yates tale has seriously drifted from its original form. The original version had Yates fabricating the entire thing because of mental illness. Like his Oswalt theory that didn't quite work, so he's now altering it to include the mental illness but only in the context of this new homosexual love nest.
Parker's trick is pretending that because he claims he has covered something that therefore it has been disproven and he doesn't have to discuss it. You can see from the above that isn't true and the original story he bastardizes and ignores still holds true and still requires serious answers. Answers he never gives.
.
I expect the only point we can agree on is that you do not have the slightest doubt that Ralph Leon Yates accurately described picking up a hitch hiker when
and where he claimed he did, and the details of what that pedestrian looked like, said, carried, and the drop off location. Your certainty in itself, is quite troubling.
Albert Doyle Wrote:
Quote:
................ During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview forty-two years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. He drove there with Dorothy. He was admitted that evening as a psychiatric patient. From that point on, he spent the remaining eleven years of his life as a patient in and out of mental health hospitals.
A crucial transition in the psychic health of Ralph Yates seems to have occurred at the FBI office on January 4, 1964. Something the FBI said after Ralph's polygraph test puzzled and disturbed Dorothy:
"They told me that he was telling the truth [according to the polygraph machine], but that basically he had convinced himself that he was telling the truth. So that's how it came out. He strongly believed it, so it came out that way."
According to what the FBI told Dorothy Yates, the data that registered on the polygraph machine, as then read in the normal way by the polygraph examiner, showed that Ralph Yates was telling the truth. His test was officially recorded as "inconclusive" (meaning the examiner wasn't sure if Yates was telling the truth) only because J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI had decided what the truth had to be for Yates. The FBI-defined truth was that Yates had not picked up the Oswald-like hitchhiker with the "curtain rods" package, because for the FBI there could be no such hitchhiker. Therefore Ralph Leon Yates, by being so definitive (as shown by his polygraph chart) In knowing that he did precisely thatpicked up a nonexistent hitchhikercould only have lost touch with reality. What for any other polygraphed person would serve as proof of truth-telling was, in the case of Yates, proof only of an illusory divorce from reality. The wrenching but undeniable truth for Yates, that he helped a man he thought was the president's assassin deliver what could have been his weapon to the Book Depository, was what compelled him to contact the FBI in the first place. Now he was being told his experience was nothing but an illusion. The FBI said so. Because of Yates's unswerving, polygraphed conviction to the contrary, that he knew what really happened, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI knew what they had to do. They told him to report at once to a psychiatric hospital.
Exactly what happened to Ralph Yates in the following days as a patient at Woodlawn Hospital, Dorothy Yates did not witness and does not know.
She does know that early one morning about a week later, Ralph broke out of Woodlawn. At 4:00 A.M. she opened the front door of their house to find Ralph standing barefoot on the steps in his white hospital cIothes. Snow was swirling around him. Ralph told Dorothy he had escaped from the mental institution. He said he tied sheets together and climbed down from a window. He had then stolen a car and driven home.
Ralph was tormented by fear in a way Dorothy would see repeated for years. He told his wife someone was trying to kill them and their children because of what he knew about Oswald. She quickly bundled up their five sleepy children, the oldest of whom was six. Ralph drove his family away from their house in the stolen car. Within a few hours, Dorothy was more alarmed by her husband's frantic efforts to evade their murder at every turn than she was by any unidentified killers. She returned the car and reported his whereabouts to the Woodlawn Hospital authorities.
Ralph was picked up and returned to Woodlawn. He was soon transferred to Terrell State Hospital, a psychiatric facility about thirty miles east of Dallas, where he lived for eight years. He was then transferred to the Veterans Hospital in Waco for a year and a half, and finally to Rusk State Hospital for the final year and a half of his life. While a patient at all three hospitals, he spent intermittent periods of from one to three months at home with his wife and children. He was never able to work again.......
The record in the images above supports that it is reasonable to be troubled about what possibly could be driving Mr. Doyle's seemingly very intense and certain
opinions. Even taking allowing for distrust of the FBI, what is there in this particular controversy to drive out any and all doubt that Mr. Yate's was mentally disturbed and this disturbance influenced him to attempt to insert himself into the investigation of the Assassination of JFK?
Does each and every disturbed individual who contacted the FBI in response to the Assassination of JFK, regardless of the details that emerged of their backgrounds, and of their claims, and of the support they provided for their claims, get a pass, get accepted as more reliable than the conflicts included in the investigative record? If the answer is yes, why spend any additional time in this research?
What is Doyle's broader record of discernment? Has he developed a reputation here for countering what seems to him not to pass the smell test? Are the examples of broad assumptions his sense of things and his research have influenced to be turned around? I can post some examples of him being emphatic and later developments further weaken his adamance. Aggravating the difficulty of identifying such examples is the infrequency of his admission of any misinterpretation.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
I'm curious about something, Tom. Did you have a particular point to make. or are you simply trying to provoke another acrimonious and tedious discussion? If you have a point to make, please state it. Leave out the attitude.
If you're just trying to see what sort of foul you can draw, please go to another forum to do so. I personally dislike the BS that inevitably comes from this sort of slap fight.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Tom Scully Wrote:The record in the images above supports that it is reasonable to be troubled about what possibly could be driving Mr. Doyle's seemingly very intense and certain
opinions. Even taking allowing for distrust of the FBI, what is there in this particular controversy to drive out any and all doubt that Mr. Yate's was mentally disturbed and this disturbance influenced him to attempt to insert himself into the investigation of the Assassination of JFK?
Does each and every disturbed individual who contacted the FBI in response to the Assassination of JFK, regardless of the details that emerged of their backgrounds, and of their claims, and of the support they provided for their claims, get a pass, get accepted as more reliable than the conflicts included in the investigative record? If the answer is yes, why spend any additional time in this research?
What is Doyle's broader record of discernment? Has he developed a reputation here for countering what seems to him not to pass the smell test? Are the examples of broad assumptions his sense of things and his research have influenced to be turned around? I can post some examples of him being emphatic and later developments further weaken his adamance. Aggravating the difficulty of identifying such examples is the infrequency of his admission of any misinterpretation.
Mr Scully, you have to resolve yourself to the fact that the FBI is a dirty actor in the Kennedy Assassination and that pretend document-based objective defense of them is an extremely backwards act, all things considered. Attacking some of the worst victims of the assassination like Yates, Pitzer, and others is a very deplorable thing considering how it takes the side of those who murdered Kennedy and wages against some terribly victimized people who can't defend themselves. It's a real act of betrayal for anyone who dares call themselves a conspiracy exposer.
A truer more credible analysis of Ralph Yates would show that he was not the chronic psychotic - you deniers are depending upon to get around the evidence - before his witnessing. You people are trying to get away with ignoring that if Ralph Yates was as mentally ill as you propose that therefore it would have showed up in his work record. There is no such thing and a correct analysis of Yates would show that his alleged FBI-diagnosed mental illness arose in direct proportion to his refusing to back down from what he knew to be true.
If you look at the deniers method they take maximum advantage of all the dirty tricks FBI pulled. Yates' family had a history of mental vulnerability. Yates was exactly the type of personality that could be induced into such symptoms with the right prompting. If you think FBI wasn't aware of this and didn't exploit it to its maximum you're simply ignorant or deliberately dishonest (Parnell). Yates was broken by FBI shortly after they broke SH Landesberg the same way. And for the same reason. A clear FBI Modus Operandi.
Dempsey Jones confirmed that Yates had told him of this hitch-hiker and his discussing shooting JFK with a high powered rifle from an office building prior to the assassination. The reason Yates rushed-in and told Jones this was because it was strangely similar to a conversation they had a few weeks earlier. Greg Parker tried to dismiss Yates on grounds of mental illness. However he changed his story once he realized the facts were too strong and is now claiming the hitch-hiker was toothless Larry Crafard.
After trying to break Yates, instead of honestly investigating his witnessing our FBI Gestapo finally gave Yates a polygraph. After it was done the FBI agent admitted to Yates' wife Dorothy that the polygraph showed Yates was telling the truth. This machine confirmed as truthful all of the details Yates had provided about his witnessing, including the rifle, showing photos of the man holding the rifle, discussion of shooting Kennedy, the hitch-hiker walking toward the Depository entrance after being dropped-off, and the man being identical to Oswald. This event is also useful in showing the accuracy of FBI documents. For in their report FBI said the polygraph was "inconclusive", however the witness Mrs Yates confirmed that FBI admitted it showed Yates was telling the truth.
Yes, Scully, something is driving Mr Doyle's strong conviction...
Tom Scully Wrote:The record in the images above supports that it is reasonable to be troubled about what possibly could be driving Mr. Doyle's seemingly very intense and certain
opinions. Even taking allowing for distrust of the FBI, what is there in this particular controversy to drive out any and all doubt that Mr. Yate's was mentally disturbed and this disturbance influenced him to attempt to insert himself into the investigation of the Assassination of JFK?
Does each and every disturbed individual who contacted the FBI in response to the Assassination of JFK, regardless of the details that emerged of their backgrounds, and of their claims, and of the support they provided for their claims, get a pass, get accepted as more reliable than the conflicts included in the investigative record? If the answer is yes, why spend any additional time in this research?
What is Doyle's broader record of discernment? Has he developed a reputation here for countering what seems to him not to pass the smell test? Are the examples of broad assumptions his sense of things and his research have influenced to be turned around? I can post some examples of him being emphatic and later developments further weaken his adamance. Aggravating the difficulty of identifying such examples is the infrequency of his admission of any misinterpretation.
Mr Scully, you have to resolve yourself to the fact that the FBI is a dirty actor in the Kennedy Assassination and that pretend document-based objective defense of them is an extremely backwards act, all things considered. Attacking some of the worst victims of the assassination like Yates, Pitzer, and others is a very deplorable thing considering how it takes the side of those who murdered Kennedy and wages against some terribly victimized people who can't defend themselves. It's a real act of betrayal for anyone who dares call themselves a conspiracy exposer.
A truer more credible analysis of Ralph Yates would show that he was not the chronic psychotic - you deniers are depending upon to get around the evidence - before his witnessing. You people are trying to get away with ignoring that if Ralph Yates was as mentally ill as you propose that therefore it would have showed up in his work record. There is no such thing and a correct analysis of Yates would show that his alleged FBI-diagnosed mental illness arose in direct proportion to his refusing to back down from what he knew to be true.
If you look at the deniers method they take maximum advantage of all the dirty tricks FBI pulled. Yates' family had a history of mental vulnerability. Yates was exactly the type of personality that could be induced into such symptoms with the right prompting. If you think FBI wasn't aware of this and didn't exploit it to its maximum you're simply ignorant or deliberately dishonest (Parnell). Yates was broken by FBI shortly after they broke SH Landesberg the same way. And for the same reason. A clear FBI Modus Operandi.
Dempsey Jones confirmed that Yates had told him of this hitch-hiker and his discussing shooting JFK with a high powered rifle from an office building prior to the assassination. The reason Yates rushed-in and told Jones this was because it was strangely similar to a conversation they had a few weeks earlier. Greg Parker tried to dismiss Yates on grounds of mental illness. However he changed his story once he realized the facts were too strong and is now claiming the hitch-hiker was toothless Larry Crafard.
After trying to break Yates, instead of honestly investigating his witnessing our FBI Gestapo finally gave Yates a polygraph. After it was done the FBI agent admitted to Yates' wife Dorothy that the polygraph showed Yates was telling the truth. This machine confirmed as truthful all of the details Yates had provided about his witnessing, including the rifle, showing photos of the man holding the rifle, discussion of shooting Kennedy, the hitch-hiker walking toward the Depository entrance after being dropped-off, and the man being identical to Oswald. This event is also useful in showing the accuracy of FBI documents. For in their report FBI said the polygraph was "inconclusive", however the witness Mrs Yates confirmed that FBI admitted it showed Yates was telling the truth.
Yes, Scully, something is driving Mr Doyle's strong conviction...
21-07-2015, 03:59 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015, 04:23 AM by Tom Scully.)
David Josephs Wrote:Miles!
Great to see you here back in the fray...
Hope things are well by you... been doing a lot of work since we last spoke... all up on CTKA.net
Take care
DJ
PS... you can be sure that if certain disgruntled Australian people present one thing, the reality is most certainly the exact opposite...
::headbang::
David,
I'm not from or associated with Australians, so I expect you are not including me. We get to pick our shots and it seems a good idea to prioritize them, and that is a consideration that makes it doubly difficult to understand where you are coming from in this instance.
The forceful personalities on the other side of this ongoing disagreement will continue to limp under the weight of their own reputations and penchant for shooting at their own feet regardless of any reconsideration of your own assessment of this, David. I advise you to block them out of your mind if you chose to reexamine what you think vs. what you actually have.
Is Ralph Yates and are his claims worth what i guess can be called the "influence capital" that has to be put at risk if you make the choice of disregarding the "stuff" I am confined by because of my approach in discerning what is what in this particular controversy, as in the study of any other.
Is it worth it, considering what you actually can bring to an argument opposite of what I am discerning about this controversy? I cannot escape agenda influenced discernment, so recognizing that my agenda can cloud my thinking, I try to pick my shots carefully. The record make me run from this one, as i see nothing of great value to gain, and my credibility on the line. I save going out on a limb for the few instances when I think it really matters.
We all form impressions of each other, and I am trying to keep it about the details, instead of about the baggage associated with the delivery.
I am sorry, I do not understand how you can expect your position in this particular controversy is constructive in a broader sense. Mrs. Yates does not seem much help...... I checked. I've studied DC Dave's work related to the alleged suicide of Forrestal at Bethesda and the investigation that never was into his death, the Willcutts Report.
DC Dave related, and I already presented some of the contradictions, that Mrs. Yates was recounting 42 year old memories of interacting with the FBI. She said the FBI as much as ordered her husband to do directly to the Mental Hospital. The reporting indicates doctors at Parkland got in between her memory of the timeline, and Ralph's death certificate indicates a schizophrenic condition thirteen years later.
It does not help that neither you or Mr. Scull included anything supporting your interpretations in either of your posts that come closely on the heels of my last post, and Mr. Doyle's reply to my post read as a scolding session supported by his suspicions.
Is everything I have posted from the record in attempting to support my dismissal of Yates's veracity and of the importance of what he had to say, irrelevant, especially considering it seems preposterous to me on it's face, even if he had presented a verifiable reason for being in a position to pick up the hitch hiker, as well as a reputation as a healthy and a credible person, according to his wife and co-workers. Is a single one of my cites of any value or influence?
Donald Mask's coworker, Ayres is also quoted by the FBI as claiming that he reviewed company records and found
no check issued as claimed by Yates and added that such an event was counter to his business's bill paying
practices. I see no reason to waste further effort in posting an image of that statement, as well, until I
read your reply.
Is a consequence of dismissing everything I have presented, that there is no structure and no method bent on evaluating and impeaching what cannot be verified, claim by claim, and is the risk then that all arguments are reduced to presenters yelling at each other? Is their a potentially broad audience for people presenting arguments
founded almost entirely on suspicions fueled by an overall estimation of the level of the duplicity of investigative
authority? Morley and his attorney Lesar may not have won their FOIA lawsuit, but the result of their by the book
litigation effort was that we know much more about the CIA role and interest in LHO in New Orleans than we would have if Jim Lesar had pled that the FBI and CIA fabricated all related records.
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.
