Ralph Yates

[Miles Scull]

I feel general discussion of lie detectors is regressive to the pertinent evidence in the specific case of Ralph Yates whom the FBI agent said "was telling the truth".



A polygraph is a very sensitive machine that would not be likely to miss stress of the magnitude claimed for Yates who was committed because of it.

Drawing from memory I believe Yates first visited the FBI to report on the 26th of Nov. That means Yates had one day to concoct his story from the revelations made by Wade on the evening of the 24th. That is: if Yates was fabricating.

In that case, what could possibly have been Yates' motivation in concocting such an elaborate falsehood? Yates had been in jail briefly (30 days?) as I recall for tire theft as I remember. Why would he risk jail now by lying to the FBI? Was Yates' motivation that he wanted to go to jail?

Doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, if Yates told the truth, then, that does make sense. The FBI had to discredit Yates by any means.

[Tom Scully]

I feel general discussion of lie detectors is regressive to the pertinent evidence in the specific case of Ralph Yates whom the FBI agent said "was telling the truth".


A polygraph is a very sensitive machine that would not be likely to miss stress of the magnitude claimed for Yates who was committed because of it.

Drawing from memory I believe Yates first visited the FBI to report on the 26th of Nov. That means Yates had one day to concoct his story from the revelations made by Wade on the evening of the 24th. That is: if Yates was fabricating.

In that case, what could possibly have been Yates' motivation in concocting such an elaborate falsehood? Yates had been in jail briefly (30 days?) as I recall for tire theft as I remember. Why would he risk jail now by lying to the FBI? Was Yates' motivation that he wanted to go to jail?

Doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, if Yates told the truth, then, that does make sense. The FBI had to discredit Yates by any means.

Let's just ask "them" !

I feel general discussion of lie detectors is regressive to the pertinent evidence in the specific case of Ralph Yates whom the FBI agent said "was telling the truth".


A polygraph is a very sensitive machine that would not be likely to miss stress of the magnitude claimed for Yates who was committed because of it.

You certainly make it quite clear you got this, I will get out of your way!
http://jfk.education/yates/

With the record selection and the mirror reflection
I'm dancing with myself
...........
Oh dancing with myself
Oh dancing with myself
Well there's nothing to lose and there's nothing to prove
I'll be dancing with myself, oh

[Magda Hassan]

Tom I'm finding your posting this Amazon Hendrix thing confusing. What are you trying to say? Yes there is another Amazon reviewer called Ralph Yates but what relevance is this to what is discussed here?

[Albert Doyle]

Scully has a strange sense of evidence and the argument of it.

[Tom Scully]

Tom I'm finding your posting this Amazon Hendrix thing confusing. What are you trying to say? Yes there is another Amazon reviewer called Ralph Yates but what relevance is this to what is discussed here?

I am a researcher. I like to know who I am dealing with. It could be coincidental that three people are actually one person, but this seems extremely unlikely.

I posted the obit of an individual who matched the description of the Amazon profile of an individual of Sanibel, FL who had this name and this interest. This Amazon profile engaged in discussion, as I linked and excerpted above, with a Ralph Yates amazon profile, and the Ralph Yates amazon profile also engaged with my Amazon profile, repeatedly, as I also linked and excerpted in my post, above.

I hope you will agree that it goes well beyond a friendly back and forth, here, on the topic of the reliability of the claims of Ralph Yates, if Yates's most enthusiastic supporter in this thread is also using the name Ralph Yates as an amazon profile sock puppet engaged in discussion with the amazon profile that matches the name and town of residence of a deceased person, as well as the name of the ardent Yates supporter here in this thread.

The evidence is even more overwhelming for Jimi Hendrix's murder. It was simply never investigated by the British Government.

You have to figure that since Jimi Hendrix was high on the list of the Huston Plan's "Security Index" that he fell squarely in to the crosshairs of COINTELPRO's gunsights. One has to imagine, and figure it safe to assume, that when Jimi Hendrix called his New York doctor to discuss his insomnia that CIA was listening-in on the international phone call. So there would be good reason to assume they knew he intended to take the extra-powerful Vesparax that were subtly placed into Monika's flat.

More curious, if we look into Jimi's German girlfriend Monika Dannemann she has a very suspicious background no one is very sure of. For instance she only dated black musicians in Germany before she met Hendrix. In the 1960's it was still considered a psychological abnormality for a white German girl to only like black men. Was Dannemann being groomed for Hendrix as an intelligence infiltrator?

Hendrix took a lot of LSD. If you know about the bizarre programs CIA was involved with back then they involved some very far-out, cutting-edge fringe psy-ops type operations involving drug-induced mind-control etc....

I look for patterns. I've supported this one. Amazon profile, "Ralph Yates" is engaged in discussion (in my post above) with Amazon profile, "Albert Doyle of Sanibel," in a discussion (four months after the date of the obituary of a man matching that description, whose survivors are named in that obit....) of a book titled, [URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm"]Double Witness: The Murder Of Jimi Hendrix
[/URL]


Magda, I do not like to made sport of, and I've supported my claim that I am being made sport of in this thread. Please reread my last post and consider that my presentation in'
these two posts indicates there is no living person with the name and description of the individual engaging the "Ralph Yates" amazon profile, yet there the "two of them are," chattering on about the late Mr. Hendrix......

Albert Regan Doyle - Sanibel-Captiva Islander
Feb 5, 2014 - Albert, the son of William and Gertrude Maye Doyle, attended...
... Special thanks to Albert's son Brian who provided care for him at home....



Magda, I hope you'll consider whether or not you are directing your questions to the person who can explain all of this. I'll debate cordially with anyone, but I think it goes beyond the pale if someone involved in the discussion here is so committed to the rather obscure informant to the FBI, Ralph Yates, that it has led to creation of an Amazon profile displayed in
discussion of the mysterious death of Hendrix, with an Amazon profile matching the description of a person known to have been deceased at the time. Since I've put my time into this thread, "discussing" Ralph Yates's veracity, the rest of "this" has become my business.

Two posts back, I linked to a page supporting everything I have presented in this and in my last post.:

CROWDED HOUSE: RALPH YATES RELOADED

[Albert Doyle]

I think somebody's losing the debate.


It's very unlikely that the sensitive technology of a polygraph would miss stress that was severe enough to get Yates committed. That doesn't line up with the FBI agent telling Dorothy Yates that the machine showed Ralph was telling the truth. The only reason we are debating this is because neo-con researchers and that blowhard Parker decided to attack some of the main victims in order to make themselves look like more discerning researchers. It's quite clear FBI needed to break Yates because he witnessed something very dangerous to the coup.

[Tom Scully]

I feel general discussion of lie detectors is regressive to the pertinent evidence in the specific case of Ralph Yates whom the FBI agent said "was telling the truth".



A polygraph is a very sensitive machine that would not be likely to miss stress of the magnitude claimed for Yates who was committed because of it.

You certainly make it quite clear you got this, I will get out of your way!
http://jfk.education/yates/

With the record selection and the mirror reflection
I'm dancing with myself
...........
Oh dancing with myself
Oh dancing with myself
Well there's nothing to lose and there's nothing to prove
[URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm"]I'll be dancing with myself, oh

[/URL]Double Witness: The Murder Of Jimi Hendrix[URL="http://www.amazon.com/review/R7U5WM5R54DLG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm"]
[/URL]

Tom I'm finding your posting this Amazon Hendrix thing confusing. What are you trying to say? Yes there is another Amazon reviewer called Ralph Yates but what relevance is this to what is discussed here?

Scully has a strange sense of evidence and the argument of it.

I think somebody's losing the debate.
.....................

Judyth Baker responded on her Facebook page:

{ "DID LEE HARVEY OSWALD GO TO MEXICO CITY?" According to "Ralph Yates" (Amazon book review comment on Me & Lee) I'm making "excuses similar to a schoolgirl" "making up excuses as she goes along" --and he focuses on The Cuban Consulate and Silvia Duran, who worked there, saying "The problem with this is the best of Kennedy Assassination research is starting to show that Oswald never went to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. So how could Oswald return to Baker in Texas and give her details about a place he never visited? Baker gives no answer to this." THIS IS NOT TRUE, BUT THEN, MR. YATES IS NOT COMPELLED TO TELL THE TRUTH.
First of all, ask yourself why Silvia Dura was arrested by the Mexican police and tortured to get her to admit that she slept with Lee Oswald, at the behest of the CIA. She admitted it, but later retracted it, but please remember that DURAN WAS MARRIED and had every reason to want to retract her confession. However, there had to be substance to the allegation. Lee told me that he slept with a woman associated with the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to try to get access to a Cuban transit visa. The police and the CIA apparently believed this was possible. Anything Senora Duran said later must be taken in context that she did not want to be known as a lover of a Presidential assassin........
.....................

******************************************************************************************************************




Judyth Baker begins her missive by accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth. This is the typical paranoid type framing Ms Baker uses to condition her information in order to present herself as being the victim of unfair attackers out to persecute her.

Ms Baker, if you stayed true to the established record you would admit that the CIA got the Mexican police to jail and torture Silvia Duran because she refused to back off her story that the man calling himself Oswald at the Consulate was not the Lee Harvey Oswald shown in the newspapers after the assassination. Duran finally gave in and changed her story saying it was Lee. The story of Lee sleeping with Duran was probably CIA disinformation designed to sheep-dip Oswald as a pro-Castro-ite. Your ignoring of the original context of Ms Duran's witnessing - that is, that Duran said the man had blond curly hair and was shorter than Lee, only serves to further prove my point.

You do the same thing again with Newman. I've read 'Oswald And The CIA'. You are quoting Newman out of context. You should have posted his quote saying that the government committed fraud in the case of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. The correct context is Newman is quoting FBI and CIA reports that self-servingly speak as if Oswald was in Mexico. As I said originally, the best research is now showing Oswald never went to Mexico City. There's no evidence of him being in Mexico and the most meaningful evidence shows intel admitting Oswald was impersonated in Mexico. Mark Lane interviewed David Atlee Phillips at a California University where he said "History will show Oswald never went to Mexico". You, again, only prove my accusations against you by doing this.

You seem to fail to detect that Oswald was framed in Mexico in order to portray him as a pro-Castro-ite bomb-thrower and danger. It's pretty simple to figure out that the cables referred to Oswald in Mexico because they were trying to frame him as being there visiting Kostikov and planning to escape to his alleged sponsor Castro after the assassination. Really, you are offering easily explained rhetoric as firm proof which only furthers my accusations.

Again Ms Baker you try to cap this off by offering one of your classic mish-mashes of jumbled evidence but after trying to decipher the flurry of references I am at a loss over what you are trying to say or how it answers the point? This is classic of you. What the suit allegedly left in Laredo or the bracelet has to do with the Mexico evidence I don't know. Certainly your less than clear statement does nothing to resolve that. I see you also now admit to an Oswald double. Good, that is something you denied before and didn't believe in.

It is completely incorrect to say that since Oswald was job hunting he couldn't be framed in Mexico. I'm glad you offered that because it is a good example of what I'm talking about. There is no reason why the double you admit to in this response couldn't be on one end while Lee was on the other. In fact it is exactly because of the incautiousness of that impersonation that these conflicts are now coming out.

I'm surprised to see that while saying it would be ridiculous to try to frame Oswald that you then return to offer a whole list of evidence showing CIA framed Oswald in Mexico. Do you see, Ms Baker, how this reinforces my point about you? And this is what you offer as a refutation while accusing me of not being compelled to tell the truth??? Did it ever occur to you that while all the other things you list were frame-ups that your twist party included amongst them might also have been a frame up? I believe Newman also speculated that too. Was Lee's Cuban Consulate passport photo found after CIA tortured Duran into agreement?

Honestly Ms Baker, you are not seriously offering this mish-mash flurry of uncredible, poorly-contexted, logically-unsound references as a refutation of what I said? Sorry, but in my mind it only serves to reinforce my accusation and prove yet again another example of what I am saying. And I'm not one of your worst critics. My official position is that there may be some truth to your story. For instance I believe Anna Lewis on seeing an Oswald double (as you now admit) in New Orleans in early 1962. But I can tell you right now you are not doing very well on your Mexico claim or your defense of it here.

So Albert, you admit posting on that other site under the name of "Ralph Yates"? Just curious why you would assume the moniker of an at least "partly-discredited-by-virtue-of-insanity" eyewitness to the Oswald double story. That strikes me as callous. Wasn't the use of the Ralph Yates name the topic of some other seemingly pointless post in the recent past? What are you up to?

PS: I don't believe JVB's story in the slightest, and if there are doubles showing up around here, she's one of them, according to her sometime-defender Edward Haslam...

Just curious why you would assume the moniker of an at least "partly-discredited-by-virtue-of-insanity" eyewitness to the Oswald double story. That strikes me as callous. Wasn't the use of the Ralph Yates name the topic of some other seemingly pointless post in the recent past? What are you up to?

Yates is only discredited if you believe the word of the FBI in its Kennedy assassination investigation.......

Ralph Yates says:

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Hide post again. (Show all unhelpful posts)]

I'm not sure if you realize the rich irony of a person in your position calling Ralph Yates a mental case...

....Magda, I hope you'll consider whether or not you are directing your questions to the person who can explain all of this. I'll debate cordially with anyone, but I think it goes beyond the pale if someone involved in the discussion here is so committed to the rather obscure informant to the FBI, Ralph Yates, that it has led to creation of an Amazon profile displayed in
discussion of the mysterious death of Hendrix, with an Amazon profile matching the description of a person known to have been deceased at the time. Since I've put my time into this thread, "discussing" Ralph Yates's veracity, the rest of "this" has become my business.

Two posts back, I linked to a page supporting everything I have presented in this and in my last post.:

CROWDED HOUSE: RALPH YATES RELOADED

???

[Miles Scull]

I feel general discussion of lie detectors is regressive to the pertinent evidence in the specific case of Ralph Yates whom the FBI agent said "was telling the truth".



A polygraph is a very sensitive machine that would not be likely to miss stress of the magnitude claimed for Yates who was committed because of it.

Drawing from memory I believe Yates first visited the FBI to report on the 26th of Nov. That means Yates had one day to concoct his story from the revelations made by Wade on the evening of the 24th. That is: if Yates was fabricating.

In that case, what could possibly have been Yates' motivation in concocting such an elaborate falsehood? Yates had been in jail briefly (30 days?) as I recall for tire theft as I remember. Why would he risk jail now by lying to the FBI? Was Yates' motivation that he wanted to go to jail?

Doesn't make any sense.

On the other hand, if Yates told the truth, then, that does make sense. The FBI had to discredit Yates by any means.

Wade on the 24th reported that Oswald carried a "package" to the TSBD on the morning of the 22nd, which package contained "window curtains or window shades." Wade did not mention brown wrapping paper or rods or 4 to 4 1/2 feet long.

But Yates reported to the FBI on the 26th that the Oswald that he picked up before the 22nd was carrying a brown paper wrapped package about 4 ft. to 4 1/2 ft. long which Oswald said contained "curtain rods."

Now, how does Yates concoct a lie about "curtain rods" when he would only have heard or read "window curtains or window shades?" Where in the press were "curtain RODS" printed on the 25th that Yates might have seen in order to refine and embellish
his detailed and elaborate fabrication?

Even if Yates was insane, did he have an delusion which conveniently supplied him with the RODS detail out of thin air? And the brown paper wrapping and the 4 to 4 1/2 length out of nothing?

Can any "doubter" produce a newspaper story from Nov. 25 or 26 which has these "Yates" reported details mentioned?

OK, let's see it.

[Albert Doyle]

The FBI agent told Dorothy Yates that the machine showed Ralph was telling the truth.



FBI then altered this to inconclusive in order to avoid accountability for not following-through on a positive polygraph by investigating serious evidence of an Oswald impostor as a positive polygraph would force them to do by normal procedure.

[Drew Phipps]

The curtain rod story was committed to writing by Frasier late afternoon, on Nov. 22, in a written affidavit. That could easily have made it to public awareness before the 26th. Especially given the propensity of the DPD to leak details to the voracious reporters. However, I don't have a specific newspaper article or news video.

Here's something at black ops radio with links, which seem pertinent but which don't work for me: http://www.blackopforum.info/discussion/...s-story/p1


Wade's remarks to the media are not all exactly correct. IIRC Wade himself was fact-corrected on live TV 11/23/63 by none other than Jack Ruby.