Tom Scully Wrote: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?
Scully,
The FBI is trying to discredit Yates. That means the information they provide in their reports is skewed in order to produce the desired outcome. You present FBI reports as if they were innocent and truth-seeking when in fact there is every reason to believe they are the opposite and do not contain the worthy information you suggest. So far I have yet to see you acknowledge this.
Do you believe the FBI reports on Oswald that back the Warren Commission?
Where we left off on this is Yates passed his polygraph and it showed he was telling the truth. You never responded.
Tom Scully Wrote: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?
Scully,
The FBI is trying to discredit Yates. That means the information they provide in their reports is skewed in order to produce the desired outcome. You present FBI reports as if they were innocent and truth-seeking when in fact there is every reason to believe they are the opposite and do not contain the worthy information you suggest. So far I have yet to see you acknowledge this.
Do you believe the FBI reports on Oswald that back the Warren Commission?
Where we left off on this is Yates passed his polygraph and it showed he was telling the truth. You never responded.
I never responded because you asserted that "Yates passed his polygraph". If you have something to challenge the FBI report of the polygraph test which states the test was inconclusive because Yates's metabolic measurements that a polygraph is designed to record for the purpose of fluctuations observed and analyzed by a trained polygraph technician did not deviate during baseline questioning,or during any questioning, I am certainly willing to consider it. You have not made a favorable impression, so far, insisting that Yates "passed"..... that the polygraph somehow measured and confirmed his truthfulness. Mr. Doyle, Yates passed no polygraph test. His wife passed along what she claimed to have heard said orally to her by someone 42 years earlier, as described in the writing of DC Dave.
Your claim is unsupported compared to the Yates polygraph result reported in the FBI record. What was there for me to actually reply to, your invalid opinion? I was persuaded by your response following my detailed post that there is no reasoning with you on the matter of the Yates polygraph controversy.
My central reason for replying to you now is that you are insisting, and I want to share with you that this is not my first rodeo. I have analyzed and come to conclusions about surprisingly similar controversies. I do not believe all witnesses who are smeared are successfully discredited, but I do know how to pick my shots. You do not indicate that you have honed your ability to prioritize what to embrace and what to distance yourself from.
A tale of a man, a military officer who made extraordinary claims related to the JFK assassination who was investigated and found to be initially persuasive, but then documented as mentally ill.:
NARA Record Number: 124-10369-10008
ADMIN FOLDER-X8: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, LEE HARVEY OSWALD VOLUME XI http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...PageId=188
.............
But the clincher is Tom Scully's discovery that Berzon and Ismay were US Naval Academy classmates, who graduated in 1951, shortly before Ismay was assigned to Quantico. ..........
Bill Kelly said... I thought I had updated this, but I have been in contact with Ishmay and believe him that he did not have knowledge of a Korth conspiracy. August 8, 2013 at 10:59 PM
Quote:William Kelly - Posted 08 November 2011
..........
I've exchanged some emails with the former Capt. of the Sequoia who says that Korth did have some parties aboard for big wigs, and also took his family - his wife and kids on holiday cruises on the Potomac.
BK
As I posted, I recognize my bias and I try not to permit it to cloud the details I actually obtain from research and then analyze as I attempt to form accurate opinions and conclusions. An alternative would be to linger endlessly over the trivial and the dead end.
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.
21-07-2015, 05:04 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015, 05:36 PM by Albert Doyle.)
You never answered my question if you consider the FBI reports about Oswald as truthful, as you do Landesberg and Yates? You seem to be an FBI man who champions their reports and their content without question. I criticized the fact you seem to give no notice to the FBI's proven track record on the assassination and how it relates to the content and flavor of their reports. You, once again, ignore it and return to challenging people's credibility using the FBI reports as rock solid, infallible mountaintop sources. I find it interesting that you never detail when you decouple from that method and vary with FBI on their reporting on Oswald? How trustworthy is FBI's reporting on Oswald and how is their portrayal of him "supported" as you say? You place a lot of weight on the semantic entity of "supported" by relying on documents. You seem to equate documents with unquestionable veracity without ever getting into the detail of FBI's agenda and how it plays out in the content and intention of their reports.
We know Yates was telling the truth because Dempsey Jones confirmed it.
Scully, why do you need to diminish Dorothy Yates' story by saying it was recounted years later? Your post seems to be saying to disregard Dorothy Yates' account and go right to the printed FBI material from the time. That somehow time discredits Dorothy Yates and makes her specific detailing of how the FBI agent pulled her aside and told her the polygraph actually showed Ralph was telling the truth, uncredible. And that the immediacy of the FBI reports somehow erases their agenda and makes their content automatically truthful and without any kind of corrupting intent - even though everything involved clearly points towards that?
Scully you've got a problem with your overly-general argument. If indeed the FBI told Dorothy that they were committing Ralph because the polygraph showed that he actually believed he was telling the truth, then why didn't they simply say that on the report in order to bolster their prosecution of Yates? You see what you have just shown is that FBI committed a conflict in reporting two different things. Why did they do that? If you are familiar with the Ralph Yates story FBI justified their institutionalization of Yates by saying the fact Oswald was known to be at work - while Yates passed a polygraph showing he actually believed he saw Oswald in his truck - meant he was certifiably crazy. So if that was the basis for his being committed why didn't the FBI just detail that? Why would they mush up this clear cause and report the polygraph as "inconclusive"? If you need this explained to you what FBI is doing is avoiding any self-incriminating evidence in order to destroy Yates in as self-serving a general manner as possible. This is because they needed to make Yates responsible for his own undoing rather than FBI's diabolical corruption. What they are obviously avoiding is anyone asking if maybe the reason Yates passed the polygraph was because it actually happened. Do you also back FBI's polygraph of Jack Ruby?
Both you and Parker go back and impose yourselves before people who were actually there. This shows a sort of desperation to get around what you know conflicts with your belief. There's a certain arrogance involved in going back and correcting people who were actually there. It shows a lack of respect for the evidence and its truthful interpretation. If you read your post it tries to make the case that Yates was generally mentally ill and therefore not credible. It goes even further and says that therefore the FBI description of Yates and their destruction of witnessing is credible because of this. But you conveniently skip over the fact that that wasn't how it happened. FBI didn't deny Yates because he was mentally ill. They specifically denied him because they said the passed polygraph showed he was insane because we know Oswald was at work and therefore couldn't possibly be in Yates' work truck at the same time. This is where your FBI report-based dismissal can't get away with what it attempts. Not so fast, Scully. Credible practicers of Deep Politics look more for what isn't in FBI reports rather than what is.
If this was the specific reason why FBI committed Ralph Yates then FBI should have reported it that way. The reason they didn't is because, like what they did with SH Landesberg, those FBI Gestapo gained an advantage by abusing their power and destroying Yates' credibility by means of the cowardly route of breaking him interrogation style and then exerting their full FBI power. Scully, I have very little respect for people who ignore all these obvious circumstances and come in on the side of the vicious FBI violators against their horrific victim whom they eventually murdered. And if you think mental institutions don't have sadistic staff who follow FBI's wants just like the Dallas Police then you're completely naive about how these things work. You need a Deep Political re-education. To ignore this truthful description of the Ralph Yates incident and repeat FBI reports verbatim, as if they were credible, says something in itself. You and Von Pein should get along because you both practice the exact same methodology. I'm just waiting for you to break free and start quoting the Warren Report as "support".
Where you and other Yates' deniers stumble is there were many other Oswald double sightings. If you analyze your input, like with the FBI reports on Oswald, you stay safely away from detailing which of these you accept and which you reject? This can only be interpreted as a defense of FBI's position that hangs back and doesn't commit to any fraud by FBI in order to keep your arguments safe. So you and those others need to account for how many of those other doubles sightings you believe and how many you don't? You need to draw the line and stake a clear position. Because once you do that you'll find those same FBI reports that you hold as holy also deny and disregard those witnessings in the exact same way they did Ralph Yates. By staying safely away from ever committing to this you avoid having to acknowledge, by means of the facts, that you practice a purely Lone Nutter form of analysis that conforms 100% on all levels with their methods. Like Parnell you practice a defense of FBI with your back to the wall asking all comers to live up to it. But anyone can see how much you have to ignore to do that and how faulty an approach that is in relation to the bigger picture. It's a ruse that is achieved by never admitting the obvious falseness of FBI and their information.
So if this is a contest of who is going to answer whose evidence I feel quite safe sticking to my entries. I feel quite safe as to which side I defend and answer to vs which side the challengers are really defending without admitting it. FBI's lies won't get you out of this evidence Scully or the need to answer it. Sticking to your FBI report playing cards is not a submittable position on any Deep Politics site.
21-07-2015, 09:19 PM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015, 09:38 PM by Tom Scully.)
Albert Doyle Wrote:You never answered my question if you consider the FBI reports about Oswald as truthful, as you do Landesberg and Yates? You seem to be an FBI man who champions their reports and their content without question. I criticized the fact you seem to give no notice to the FBI's proven track record on the assassination and how it relates to the content and flavor of their reports. You, once again, ignore it and return to challenging people's credibility using the FBI reports as rock solid, infallible mountaintop sources.
Quote:Quote from: Tom Scully, AKA Sir Walter Spottybottom, on September 19, 2014
Oswald's Note to FBI Agent Hosty http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100hostynote.html
Fenner reported that she had given the note to Kyle Clark, an assistant special agent in charge, who read it. Clark handed it back to .... Dave Reitzes home page......
The following is contained in this post, but if I post the document image links inside the quote box, they will not display.:
I find it interesting that you never detail when you decouple from that method and vary with FBI on their reporting on Oswald? How trustworthy is FBI's reporting on Oswald and how is their portrayal of him "supported" as you say? You place a lot of weight on the semantic entity of "supported" by relying on documents. You seem to equate documents with unquestionable veracity without ever getting into the detail of FBI's agenda and how it plays out in the content and intention of their reports.
We know Yates was telling the truth because Dempsey Jones confirmed it.
Scully, why do you need to diminish Dorothy Yates' story by saying it was recounted years later? Your post seems to be saying to disregard Dorothy Yates' account and go right to the printed FBI material from the time. That somehow time discredits Dorothy Yates and makes her specific detailing of how the FBI agent pulled her aside and told her the polygraph actually showed Ralph was telling the truth, uncredible. And that the immediacy of the FBI reports somehow erases their agenda and makes their content automatically truthful and without any kind of corrupting intent - even though everything involved clearly points towards that?
Scully you've got a problem with your overly-general argument. If indeed the FBI told Dorothy that they were committing Ralph because the polygraph showed that he actually believed he was telling the truth, then why didn't they simply say that on the report in order to bolster their prosecution of Yates? You see what you have just shown is that FBI committed a conflict in reporting two different things. Why did they do that? If you are familiar with the Ralph Yates story FBI justified their institutionalization of Yates by saying the fact Oswald was known to be at work - while Yates passed a polygraph showing he actually believed he saw Oswald in his truck - meant he was certifiably crazy. So if that was the basis for his being committed why didn't the FBI just detail that? Why would they mush up this clear cause and report the polygraph as "inconclusive"? If you need this explained to you what FBI is doing is avoiding any self-incriminating evidence in order to destroy Yates in as self-serving a general manner as possible. This is because they needed to make Yates responsible for his own undoing rather than FBI's diabolical corruption. What they are obviously avoiding is anyone asking if maybe the reason Yates passed the polygraph was because it actually happened. Do you also back FBI's polygraph of Jack Ruby?
Both you and Parker go back and impose yourselves before people who were actually there. This shows a sort of desperation to get around what you know conflicts with your belief. There's a certain arrogance involved in going back and correcting people who were actually there. It shows a lack of respect for the evidence and its truthful interpretation. If you read your post it tries to make the case that Yates was generally mentally ill and therefore not credible. It goes even further and says that therefore the FBI description of Yates and their destruction of witnessing is credible because of this. But you conveniently skip over the fact that that wasn't how it happened. FBI didn't deny Yates because he was mentally ill. They specifically denied him because they said the passed polygraph showed he was insane because we know Oswald was at work and therefore couldn't possibly be in Yates' work truck at the same time. This is where your FBI report-based dismissal can't get away with what it attempts. Not so fast, Scully. Credible practicers of Deep Politics look more for what isn't in FBI reports rather than what is.
If this was the specific reason why FBI committed Ralph Yates then FBI should have reported it that way. The reason they didn't is because, like what they did with SH Landesberg, those FBI Gestapo gained an advantage by abusing their power and destroying Yates' credibility by means of the cowardly route of breaking him interrogation style and then exerting their full FBI power. Scully, I have very little respect for people who ignore all these obvious circumstances and come in on the side of the vicious FBI violators against their horrific victim whom they eventually murdered. And if you think mental institutions don't have sadistic staff who follow FBI's wants just like the Dallas Police then you're completely naive about how these things work. You need a Deep Political re-education. To ignore this truthful description of the Ralph Yates incident and repeat FBI reports verbatim, as if they were credible, says something in itself. You and Von Pein should get along because you both practice the exact same methodology. I'm just waiting for you to break free and start quoting the Warren Report as "support".
Where you and other Yates' deniers stumble is there were many other Oswald double sightings. If you analyze your input, like with the FBI reports on Oswald, you stay safely away from detailing which of these you accept and which you reject? This can only be interpreted as a defense of FBI's position that hangs back and doesn't commit to any fraud by FBI in order to keep your arguments safe. So you and those others need to account for how many of those other doubles sightings you believe and how many you don't? You need to draw the line and stake a clear position. Because once you do that you'll find those same FBI reports that you hold as holy also deny and disregard those witnessings in the exact same way they did Ralph Yates. By staying safely away from ever committing to this you avoid having to acknowledge, by means of the facts, that you practice a purely Lone Nutter form of analysis that conforms 100% on all levels with their methods. Like Parnell you practice a defense of FBI with your back to the wall asking all comers to live up to it. But anyone can see how much you have to ignore to do that and how faulty an approach that is in relation to the bigger picture. It's a ruse that is achieved by never admitting the obvious falseness of FBI and their information.
So if this is a contest of who is going to answer whose evidence I feel quite safe sticking to my entries. I feel quite safe as to which side I defend and answer to vs which side the challengers are really defending without admitting it. FBI's lies won't get you out of this evidence Scully or the need to answer it. Sticking to your FBI report playing cards is not a submittable position on any Deep Politics site.
.
I have to wonder, what do you get right, and how often does it happen? When the FBI, an FBI office staffer, an individual agent, his supervisor, the local office those individuals are assigned to, or a FBI HQ assigned agent or assistant director, or the director himself embarks upon deliberate deception, a number of considerations must first be made. I included an example of my thinking in a quote box inside the whole quote of your last post.
The topic in the box quoting me in a post at another forum is straightfoward, the Hosty note deception. I lay out, and support with linked pages, the coordination behind that deception, the challenges to it by the HSCA, and how it stood up. I examine the problems that arose after Hosty was trapped. Ms. Fenner, the staffer who received the note allegedly from LHO and passed it up, supported what Hosty testified to. Kyle Clark and Gordon Shanklin contradicted Hosty and Ms. Fenner. At least one of them was reminded during questioning by HSCA counsel that they were answering under oath.: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docI...8&tab=page
The point of this example, once again, is considering context and circumstances. No report was involved related to the Hosty note, and I illustrated through the pages I linked to that an internal (in the Dallas office) cover up took place. So, the way I end up miles apart from your approach is by evaluating the circumstances. The FBI employees with field experience investigate people who lie and cover up, and they learn through experience what works and does not work, and they become proficient as their careers unfold, in risk assessment related to what the probablilities are of what they can and cannot get away with in what they put on paper in the 302 reports that they affix their signatures to, at the page bottom.
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.
While I am performing that sort of consideration in assessing the risks vs rewards of fabricating deception in any FBI document I am reading, you are dismissing the details in the document as fraudulent and then empowering yourself to proceed on an assumption that the opposite is reliable, as in the example of you embracing an opinion that Yates passed his polygraph test and that "fact" is confirmation he was telling the truth about picking up a hitch hiker carrying a package of curtain rods who was running off at the mouth about shooting the president from a tall building, mentioning the Carousel Club, and directing Yates to drop him off near the TSBD.
if you are satisfied with the results you achieve from your analysis approach, carry on. If not, research ways to improve your results.
In Landesberg, I see no point in field agents or the NYO SAIC sending a report to FBI HQ or telling the local Asst. U.S. Attorney that WMCA's Turner and Gray both confirmed after being presented with a photo of L'eandes that Rizzuto resemble L'eandes close enough to be the basis to refer charges against Rizzuto aka SH Landesberg for false impersonation and making false statements to a federal officer.
If you disagree, your suspicions and your admiration for Armstrong's research compete with my risk vs. reward analysis. The FBI was and does have a history of a corrupt bureacracy, as do any local, state, or federal agency empowered with authority.
Explain how that example of a tight knit organizational branch translates for comparison to what had to have been behind the Yates deception, if your suspicions were accurate. Who would have to do the risk taking in the example of Yates, and why would they assume such risks? I'm advising your that your premise both in Landesberg and in Yates is ridiculous. The need and anticipated reward doesn't incentivize the risk exposure in either of those two
cases.
You automatically assume that the Dallas office led by Shanklin would put the effort necessary to smear Yates so thoroughly that it would carry over to his death certificate eleven years later and involve how many individuals in the FBI from Dallas to DC and how many doctors at Parkland and at two state mental hospitals? Are you claiming the FBI had some sort of drug or technique to permanently make a man who was never documented to have been taken into their custody, broken and schizophrenic?
You fill these threads. You post statements such as "Yates passed his polygraph." You lecture me and accuse me of being an FBI man. If you cannot overcome my argument, you attempt to paint me as Cass Sunstein's golfing buddy, or maybe his brother-in-law's swimming pool cleaner.
If you are interested in discussing the actual facts, and the contents of FBI reports are the foundations for discussion, to be proven in the details as false or reliable, I am willing to participate. If you are intent on a structureless argument assuming that all official documents are too tainted from the outset to support any argument, I am asking you for the second time, what remains aside from suspicions and groundless claims like,
"Yates passed his polygraph"?
If you carry on, as you have, and I do not reply to you, I hope you understand that it is not because I am overwhelmed by the strength of your presentation.
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.
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::
Hello David! Good to see you and Albert Doyle still at work as voices of sanity and reason against the opposite. Haven't been over to CTKA in a while, but will visit. Meanwhile, carry on the good work! Cheers -- Miles
Quote: If you are interested in discussing the actual facts, and the contents of FBI reports are the foundations for discussion, to be proven in the details as false or reliable, I am willing to participate. If you are intent on a structureless argument assuming that all official documents are too tainted from the outset to support any argument, I am asking you for the second time, what remains aside from suspicions and groundless claims like,
"Yates passed his polygraph"?
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.
11. What does it mean when someone "fails" a polygraph examination?Contrary to popular belief, there is no "passing" or "failing" grade to a polygraph examination. The examiner will determine whether or not significant physiological responses occurred to one or more of the relevant test questions. If significant responses did occur, it is a defensive physiological reaction in response to a question and the corresponding answer. Therefore, it is interpreted to mean deception is occurring. That deception may mean the examinee is lying. It also may mean the examinee is withholding critical or significant information regarding that question or topic. Follow-up actions to such a result vary widely, depending on the reason for the examination.
when the FBI writes in this report that "no significant emotional responses were recorded" it is SUPPOSED to mean that the subject is answering truthful IN CONJUNCTION with everything else the poloygraph operator is supposed to do in order to offer an OPINION as to the truthful ness of the subject.
The conclusion SHOULD HAVE BEEN - if Yates answered these questions without significant emotional responses in both the control and actual questions - that Yates was, or believed he was, telling the truth.
As to the FBI investigation and reports of the facts behind Yate's statement... can you show us where any of those interviewed were shown their reports and signed anything to say they were accurate? Like Yates?
"Charlie Meat Market Employees... failed to substantiate YATES picked up a check"
Who did they speak with? Did they get a signed statement? Did the person they spoke to even know YATES or was involved in checks for the company? (Like the FBI using Waldman fromKlein's Tom... he had nothing to do with the order process or fulfillment - so his info, while "from Klein's" is only as good as the source and the FBI's writing of the reports. FBI SA DOLAN claims in two Waldman both gave him the Microfilm AND kept it himself in reports from the same day...
Sorry Tom, FBI reports are simply not assumed accurate and reflective of the investigate by default... they have to be authenticated like anything else, even more so since the FBI and Hoover gained by catching the guy quickly.
The FBi saying YATES' polygraph results was not conclusive is simply not true.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Thanks David. I had never seen that FBI document confirming Yates had passed a lie detector test on all of the specific Oswald claims.
Perhaps this is what made jumping-horses-in-midstream-Greg change his claim that Yates was mentally ill and made the whole thing up to it was Larry Crafard. Greg obviously realized the evidence was too strong for the polygraph confirming the incriminating details.
You really have to hold the deniers' noses to it because they claimed Yates' story was the result of mental illness and gathering details from post-assassination media reports. Not one of them ever directly answers how the polygraph confirmed that Yates saw everything he described. Once you admit this obvious truth you are then forced to ask some very obvious questions that require answers.
The reason you have to hold the deniers' noses in it is because FBI specifically told Dorothy Yates that since the polygraph confirmed Yates believed what he was saying he was therefore legally insane since we know Oswald was at the Depository at that time.
Pretty interesting how the notorious schizophrenic Ralph Yates managed such a consistent and smooth clean line on the lie detector considering the stress he was under led to his being institutionalized.
22-07-2015, 07:03 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2015, 07:50 PM by Albert Doyle.)
Tom Scully Wrote:If you carry on, as you have, and I do not reply to you, I hope you understand that it is not because I am overwhelmed by the strength of your presentation.
That's pure bombast Scully. Anyone can see you made a soapbox filibuster speech that never directly answered a single one of my points.
The strength of my presentation is evinced by your evasion of it I dare say.
Quote: I'm advising your that your premise both in Landesberg and in Yates is ridiculous.
Sure Scully. And that's why you basically didn't refute anything I said and agreed with me at points. You have an annoying habit of veering into irrelevancies that don't really answer anything and then returning to your critical conclusions about my posts as if the two were connected. Frankly I think it is your presentations that are lacking and your pompous suggestion that I consult your entries as an example is foolish. All you have done here is avoided answering the main point. That is, that the FBI lied about Yates' polygraph results with the intent of railroading him just like they did SH Landesberg. That the FBI was acting dishonestly with intent in order to avoid evidence of Oswald doubles, and therefore a conspiracy. Your specious detours into ruminations over form do not relieve you of the need to answer this.
Quote:You automatically assume that the Dallas office led by Shanklin would put the effort necessary to smear Yates so thoroughly that it would carry over to his death certificate eleven years later and involve how many individuals in the FBI from Dallas to DC and how many doctors at Parkland and at two state mental hospitals? Are you claiming the FBI had some sort of drug or technique to permanently make a man who was never documented to have been taken into their custody, broken and schizophrenic?
You really have a remarkably poor understanding of Deep Politics and the depths the authorities went to in this event. You're ignorant of the fact that intel admitted it had such drugs. You're answering your own question. You're trying to seize the narrative in order to avoid a basic question. Correct methodology would ask why FBI didn't practice due diligence and investigate the positive polygraph? People fall for the trick and knuckle under to FBI power, but FBI is supposed to be a world class investigative authority. Therefore it is supposed to live up to those standards. And those standards dictate that FBI, at minimum, follow-through to see if there is anything connected to that positive polygraph. Scully, of course, with his head in clouds of sophist vapors doesn't seem concerned with this while he instructs me on my failures. Deniers seize the narrative in order to avoid answering how a guy who passes his polygraph ends up committed to a mental institution?
Several posts now and I'm still waiting for you to answer where exactly you draw the line on the veracity of FBI reports vis a vis Oswald?
Albert Doyle Wrote:Thanks David. I had never seen that FBI document confirming Yates had passed a lie detector test on all of the specific Oswald claims.
Perhaps this is what made jumping-horses-in-midstream-Greg change his claim that Yates was mentally ill and made the whole thing up to it was Larry Crafard. Greg obviously realized the evidence was too strong for the polygraph confirming the incriminating details.
You really have to hold the deniers' noses to it because they claimed Yates' story was the result of mental illness and gathering details from post-assassination media reports. Not one of them ever directly answers how the polygraph confirmed that Yates saw everything he described. Once you admit this obvious truth you are then forced to ask some very obvious questions that require answers.
The reason you have to hold the deniers' noses in it is because FBI specifically told Dorothy Yates that since the polygraph confirmed Yates believed what he was saying he was therefore legally insane since we know Oswald was at the Depository at that time.
Pretty interesting how the notorious schizophrenic Ralph Yates managed such a consistent and smooth clean line on the lie detector considering the stress he was under led to his being institutionalized.
Albert -
You may wish to visit the link from which I posted that info... YATES - as my post says - neither PASSES or FAILS the polygraph - which is not the result of a polygraph.
What the LIE here is the FBI claiming the lack of emotional response negates a conclusion when in fact it suggests the subject is telling the truth.
The pattern that apears to be missed is that the evidence related to exhonerating Oswald is ALWAYS matched with a mentally ill witness, or a forgetful witness, or any of a number of excuses the FBI uses to discredit the witness in favor of the poorly supported incrimination evidence from which the FBI and WC bent over backward to accept at all costs.
When similar things happen to Yates, Bolden, Craig when telling their truths in the years following 1963 it is not such a far jump to conclusion the FBI compiled its case with the result in mind... not with an investigation in mind.
Greg Parker is a non-issue. His sources have always been FBI reports and poor analysis of same... and his arguments on these forums is a never ending grasping at straws.
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.
It's FBI reports like the following which had become SOP for the FBI needing to question evidence.
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...
But if all we get is this report - SAC DALLAS can write whatever they want for history and Oswald incrimination sake...
It is the FBI's responsibility to corroborate and authenticate it's evidence... until doing so it MUSt be assume the evidence is part of the conspiracy and NOt part of the investigation
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
David Josephs Wrote: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.
