Ralph Yates

[Albert Doyle]

I don't see how any assassination researcher can dismiss the evidence for Ralph Yates' story so easily or take the side of the FBI against him and use FBI's defamation methods against Yates as well?
Those researchers are forgetting Ralph Yates passed a lie detector test showing what he was saying was true and that one of the FBI agents who gave Yates the test privately told his wife Dorothy that the reason he was being committed was because the test showed he was telling the truth.

They also misconstrue Dempsey Jones' statement. It's important to get this right. Yates rushed in to work to tell Jones of his picking-up a hitch-hiker who discussed shooting Kennedy from an office building with a high powered rifle (sound familiar?) during his motorcade. Yates rushed in to tell Jones this because it was a curious coincidence with their previous conversation about it being possible to shoot Kennedy on his visit. I don't think those researchers are quoting accurately either because I believe Yates mentioned to Jones that the man was carrying a package. Or do they think Yates rushed-in to work to tell Jones he picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker?

Those researchers are foolish because they forget that Jones' admission that Yates told him this two days prior to the assassination is proof enough of the hitch-hiker. It's not like this story doesn't match other stories of Oswald doubles trying to frame Oswald prior to the assassination in Dallas. Stories Yates would have no idea of when he came forward.

Another reason those researchers are foolish is because they quote witnesses after FBI and Dallas Police had gotten in touch with them. To take the FBI and those witnesses at their word and quote them is a real research foul yet they do it without shrugging. You might as well quote the owners of Ryder's Gun shop or Marina Oswald at their word and not estimate the potential intimidation they received.

No, people don't stick with a hoax under mental institution persecution up to death. Using FBI defamations of Yates' mental problems to further your case is incredibly dubious. Yates was most-likely driven crazy by FBI because they refused to believe a story he knew was true. To go after the tortured and murdered by mental institution victim Yates is one of the worst travesties you could possibly commit. It just don't work that way.

What these people are saying is Yates went to Jones upon arriving back at work to tell him about a mundane hitch-hiker. What they forget however is Jones and Yates had a curious conversation days previous where they pondered JFK getting shot from an office building with a high-powered rifle and it was because of that conversation that Yates went in to tell Jones of the freakish coincidence. These researchers give no heed to the intimidation factor of FBI giving clear signals to Jones that they didn't like this story or how that might have affected his memory of the event. As far as I know Jones told FBI that Yates said the man had a package. Yates also mentioned his telling the hitch-hiker to put the package in the pick-up bed. Yates said the hitchhiker said he would rather hold on to it. I think what saves Yates is the fact he rushed back to tell Jones because the experience was freakishly similar to what they were discussing. I can't understand people who takes sides against a man who endured sanitarium persecution in order to stick to his story as well as passing a lie detector test. Yates contacting FBI in order to push a silly hoax that would only get him in serious trouble if exposed doesn't make sense. Funny how Yates had no signs at all of those alleged serious mental problems during his employment until he came forward with his story and refused to back-down.

[Albert Doyle]

Being a "Pain in the arse" is the assumed privilege of research. Certainly being such a pain to the right people for the right reasons is no offense. I'm sure the Government considers Assassination researchers to be a pain in the arse in a similar way. What's most obvious about the doubting position on Yates is that a good defense lawyer would shred it in short order. None of it disproves Yates when correctly viewed.

I don't have my sources right now but I heard from a person trying to take the same position as these doubters that Jones admitted Yates said the hitch-hiker had a package. The doubter said that didn't prove it was a rifle-like object wrapped in brown paper. However we are in the range of confirming facts there that can't be so cavalierly denied. We have 3 highly critical evidentiary bulls-eyes there that match in the package, shooting conversation, and the Depository drop-off point. The statistical odds in that case are astronomical and can't be dismissed so easily. If the doubters are accurate then Yates went right to Jones upon getting back to work in order to inform him he picked-up an ordinary hitch-hiker. Jones never told the authorities that Yates approached him to tell him of this unremarkable event that would have deserved the response of "Oh yeah, so what?" What is most outstanding about these doubter arguments is they never show any interest in the begging inverse perspective. These doubters show no curiosity over the lack of interest by the authorities of where Yates had come from if it wasn't Oak Cliff? Smearing Yates as mentally ill doesn't quite answer this does it?

A good defense attorney would quickly point-out that just because Yates' employers said he had no job out by Oswald's boarding house doesn't mean he didn't pick-up the hitch-hiker there. There's too many possible reasons why Yates might not come forward with the exact reasons why he was there. It could be he wasn't supposed to be there but didn't want to admit it because of fear of his employer. Also, there's a serious long list of the investigators manipulating evidence. Until a thorough investigation of that employer's sympathies with the authorities is done you might as well quote Truly as an employer without doing any evaluation of his influences. I'm surprised the doubters don't see how flimsy an argument that is.


These doubters even admit Jones admitted Yates said he discussed shooting the president with the hitch-hiker. Hello. After passing a lie detector test on this story (that the doubters seem to ignore) I think we are over the hurdle here as far as confirmation of this discussion. At this point no credible researcher could deny the pattern of doubles setting-up Oswald in Dallas with crazy, brazen demonstrations of hostility and intent towards Kennedy. I frankly can't see how they would dare offer gratuitous doubt over this - with this instance once again repeating the pattern of key critical evidence bulls-eyes. Yet the doubters come back and say "Jones only said Yates picked-up a hitch-hiker." I think the part about shooting the president is pretty important and worth mentioning. Don't you?

A good defense lawyer would point-out that you don't know where Yates was in his mind during the FBI interview. He could have been vacillating on whether to come out with it all and waiting to judge the situation. Feeling-out the FBI. Also, I think it takes incredible nerve to quote FBI documents directly. You have no idea how much they deleted or omitted from those depositions. A good example is the doubters' quoting of the lie detector test results quoting FBI as saying they were 'inconclusive'. Decades later Dorothy Yates came forward and said one of the FBI agents took her aside and said Ralph had passed the test and, therefore, since we know Oswald was at work, it proves he's insane because only an insane person would truly believe this. Combine this with Jones pulling it all in and cooperating with the FBI authorities and you see the true nature of the statements. Maybe Jones was told he might lose his job if he got too involved? It's not like there isn't example after example of that like Specter threatening many witnesses.

A more honest evaluation of Yates is he had a family history of mental fragility. Put this type of personality under the duress of an FBI pressure cooker during their cover-up of a coup and it isn't surprising Yates retracted his Ruby statement. Yates' mind was being purposefully broken by FBI bastards good at the game. To not recognize or address this factor is abject travesty. Again, the doubters made no attempt to answer how Yates had no record at all of this credibility-destroying mental illness in his work record prior to his witnessing? A very strange mental condition indeed. One that goes from no trace at all to life-institutionalization with the minor stop at CIA double witnessing in between.

Another thing the doubters don't give adequate recognition to is Yates said the hitch-hiker resembled Oswald. Of course the doubters ask us to ignore that this happened numerous other times in Dallas in an identical way. Another critical key evidentiary bulls-eye. What the doubters are asking us to believe is that yes, FBI did do brazen manipulation of witnessings and statements but when it came to someone who directly witnessed a CIA double trying to frame Oswald dead to rights while Oswald was at work they didn't pull any dirty tricks and you can trust their records. Their driving Yates to a nervous breakdown was a clean shoot and they were just smoking-out a hoaxer. (A hoaxer who passed his polygraph)

I hate to be petty but I'm not familiar with shooting the president from a high building being "a common topic of conversation across Dallas." You know, the ordinary, common, run of the mill shooting the president conversation all ordinary Dallas citizen Oswald look-alikes were having while hitch-hiking with a rifle wrapped in brown wrapping paper, showing the backyard photo, clearly trying to set-up Oswald as being crazy and intending to shoot the president while being dropped-off and last seen strolling towards the Depository with the rifle conversation everyone was having.

Again to use Yates' history of mental illness against him in that incredibly out of context way is backwardsly wrong. The true context is Jones and Dorothy were intimidated into believing Oswald was at work at the time of Yates' witnessing. It's no surprise they sided against Ralph because Oswald was at work. However, decades later when Dorothy Yates got word of the good research finds since the assassination her guilt drove her to come forward and admit to a researcher that the FBI agent admitted Ralph passed the polygraph. If that polygraph, and just about everything else, isn't "evidence" I don't know what is.

There's a fine line between "standards of proof" and being stubbornly indifferent to all the key factors that line-up so perfectly. My standards of proof are a confident knowledge that the key clues are not being adequately addressed by the doubters. What's more than obvious to me is that this so-called doubt would be quickly shredded by any competent attorney and in no way does it disprove Yates or his witnessing.

If Yates just picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker why did he rush-in to tell Jones? Why did he mention the shooting the president conversation? Why would he risk loss of job and scandal to advance a hoax? The doubters contend Yates was of the particular category of psychopath that could fool a polygraph. This of course confirms his serious mental disturbance. Right in line with what FBI and the Commission contended...



.

[Albert Doyle]

Jones saying Yates filled-in all the other details after the assassination doesn't quite answer the germane points. First of all the assassination record is chock full of dubious witnesses changing their story after FBI confrontation. If we buy this official Warren Commission version without question we then have to believe Yates picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker with whom Yates then struck-up a conversation about shooting the president from an office building with a high powered rifle. When Yates returned to work he then decided to transform this meaningless encounter into a fantastic tale of Oak Cliff Oswald look-alikes and rifles. Remember Jones admitted Yates said 2 days prior to the assassination that this man mentioned shooting the president. While calling themselves the better researchers doubters are asking us to believe that Yates decided to pin this rap on the hitch-hiker two days before he would have any reason to do so in relation to the not-yet-occurring assassination. Doubters give no heed to the fact that, 2 days prior, the only significance this event would have would be a bizarre coincidence with the conversation Jones admits he and Yates had about shooting the president. Those same doubters exploit the delay without giving due recognition to the fact that naturally Yates might not gush-out with all the details if the only consequence at the time was a bizarre coincidental story. However it would make perfect sense for Yates to come forth enthusiastically with the details after the assassination seeing how profound the suddenly-appearing evidence would appear to Yates who suddenly had the significance of what he witnessed crash on him all at once. There's nothing out of the ordinary or incriminating in this. It is also understandable for Yates to come forward after Oswald was murdered. Before Oswald was murdered Yates could have assumed the investigation would have discovered all that was needed to know about Oswald. There was no pressing need for a refrigerator mechanic to jump into the international spotlight and the life disruption it would have entailed. After Oswald was no longer available Yates could have then considered it a moral responsibility to speak of what he knew. It's perfectly reasonable. The doubters speciously place the burden on Yates to come forward 2 days before the assassination with details that were irrelevant before the assassination happened. This is silly and would be a cake walk even for an average attorney.

Anyone with a keen understanding of FBI assassination information would know that Jones saying Yates told him everything else after the assassination doesn't preclude Yates telling him some key things prior to the assassination as well. FBI uses some squirrely wording and they are not above putting the fact Yates provided extra details after the assassination in a false context of his not saying important things before the assassination. This is done all the time because it isn't a lie to say Yates filled-in details after the assassination. But doubters forget to mention that Jones admitted Yates mentioned the shooting the president conversation before the assassination. No, it is absolute assassination research delinquency to not take into consideration that Jones may have been under extreme pressure and going along with FBI during that statement. He may have been coerced into overblowing the significance of the post-assassination information in order to conceal the significance of the pre-assassination comments. Taking the FBI record of Jones statement without scrutiny violates the very research standards the doubters pretend.

The dog that didn't bark on this is the lack of FBI investigation on where exactly Yates went and what he did during his trip. FBI is a highly capable organization. They are capable of finding out when Yates left work and if there was enough time to go to Oak Cliff. They could find contrary witnesses etc. FBI made no effort towards this. Could it be they knew better because any investigation would show Yates actually did pick-up this hitch-hiker like he described?

Doubters are kicking around the post but they haven't quite answered how Yates managed to pass a polygraph on this alleged whopper.

[Albert Doyle]

You can't be luke warm on this and ignoring it is just arrogance that should be called out.



Here is the transcript of Dempsey Jones' November 28th interview with FBI:



http://imgur.com//XiZxN



When viewed in the proper way, that is by putting the FBI corruption filter on the document, this interview virtually proves Yates was telling the truth. God save us from JFK researchers who are blind to the obvious and take the side of FBI and the Commission in destroying a very real witness. Researchers should be smart enough to see those doubters are ignoring things they have no right to if they were honestly seeking the truth on Yates. Their ignoring this evidence is just plain arrogance and should be seen as the intellectual dishonesty it is. The reason they don't answer the questions is because they can't. Simple enough.


The correct interpretation (in my opinion) is that FBI got Jones to say Yates was a big talker who talked a lot of foolishness, and put it prominently in the first paragraph, because they were trying to taint the document from the start with a discrediting of Yates. Doubters probably like that because it works for their purpose but they only take sides with FBI in doing that.

As some have correctly pointed-out this document's 3rd paragraph is key to understanding the real evidence. It shows what Jones actually said to FBI in his interview. A certain doubter has contended that Jones said Yates only told him he picked-up a hitch-hiker. The 3rd paragraph of this document disproves that and that doubter has not honestly accounted for it. His premise is completely disproven by this passage yet he hasn't come forth and admitted it.

The proper context of this paragraph reveals that Yates actually told Jones several key critical things that put his witnessing over the bar and clear him as having actually witnessed this event. A researcher with a good eye for evidence who is not solely guided by a need to discredit Yates would see this right away.

First off, if you view the 2nd paragraph you'll see it puts the 3rd paragraph into proper context. The 2nd paragraph shows that Jones did not contest the fact Yates was sent on a job. But more importantly - and this is the important part - it shows that the context is Jones translating what Yates told him upon arriving back at work. Simple examination of this will show that this account is completely different than what this certain researcher says it was.

There's 3 important things in the first sentence. First Jones says Yates told him 1) He picked up a "boy". It's important to note Oswald had a boyish appearance. You might say southerners called people 'boys', but this is still possibly significant. 2) It shows that on that day Yates told Jones he picked the boy up at Oak Cliff. By using FBI quote smoke and mirrors a certain researcher claims all Yates told Jones was that he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Any look at this document will show that isn't true and that the true context is Yates provided a lot of important information during that talk.

Finally, in the first sentence Yates also told Jones that he dropped the hitch-hiker off at the Depository. So the first sentence, which the 2nd paragraph clearly connotes as being in the context of things Yates told Jones that day, reveals 3 important things. 1) The boyish look of Oswald. 2) A pick-up point only blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 3) A drop-off point at the Depository. To describe Yates' tale as only saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker in light of this is a serious violation of research standards. It's not surprising these people can't answer.

Critically important is the next sentence where Jones clearly relates that Yates told him on that day that the hitch-hiker had a package. What this is is clear evidence that 2 days prior to the assassination Yates confirmed a key piece of assassination evidence as well as a key element in his story. The doubters ignore this. They have no right to. Nor do they own-up to the fact Yates had no reason to describe the precise dimensions of that package on that day. But maybe he did as the following will show.

In the 2nd sentence Jones is clearly saying after the assassination Yates clarified that the man said the package contained "window shades". Doubters say this is proof Yates embellished his story. But if we examine the statement we see window shades are an interior decoration window item. Now if Yates had said "curtain rods" it might indicate he got this from news reports and was embellishing his story. However the description of window shades shows that this is different than curtain rods but is still a window interior decoration item being used as an excuse. Now if the CIA plotters had already designed a curtain rod ruse to cover the rifle, if this double was a CIA plant then his reference to window shades is right in line with their modus operandi particular to the assassination plot. The fact that window shades are other than curtain rods but similar in an important way actually aids Yates' credibility rather than hinders it. Doubters simply dwell on Yates adding this later on but smart researchers will see how it fits and helps confirm Yates' credibility. The truth is Yates had no reason to add the detail of window shades on the day of the witnessing so his only mentioning a package adds to his credibility instead of detracting from it.

Finally, the last sentence confirms without a doubt that Yates told Jones the man struck-up a conversation about shooting Kennedy with a high powered rifle from an office building during his Dallas motorcade visit. This is hardly Yates simply saying he picked-up a hitch-hiker. Doubters have no right to ignore how this overt attempt to frame Oswald as being dangerous and showing a manic need to shoot Kennedy falls right in line with other such frame-ups occurring with Oswald look-alikes in Dallas prior to the assassination.

Now that we've properly analyzed the correct context of Jones' interview we can show how it contains several key elements that prove Yates' witnessing was real. The document clearly confirms that 1) Yates told Jones he picked-up the hitch-hiker in Oak Cliff blocks from Oswald's boarding house. 2) Yates told Jones the man had a package. 3) Yates told Jones he dropped the man off at the Depository. 4) Yates told Jones that the man struck-up a conversation similar to the one Yates had with Jones about shooting someone coming up from the overpass with an easy shot. Except the hitch-hiker was talking about it being Kennedy on his visit. It was the reason Yates told Jones about it in the first place because of the bizarre coincidence. If you read carefully Jones admits he and Yates had this conversation about sniping someone in the Plaza. In their rush to judgment doubters somehow never get around to admitting this or its relevance.

What this document proves is that Yates managed to nail 4 key critical points of assassination evidence 2 days prior to the assassination. The true assassination research interpretation of this is that it would be statistically impossible for anyone to nail 4 key critical pieces of Oswald-related Kennedy assassination evidence 2 days prior by chance. The statistical probability would be in the impossible range. Doubters try to get rid of this fact by improperly suggesting Yates should have come-up with all the precise details on the day of his witnessing. But these doubters ignore the fact that Yates, 2 days prior to the assassination, would have no reason to give details that were only relevant 2 days later when Oswald was accused of shooting Kennedy.

What a certain doubter flagrantly ignores is that Dorothy Yates was induced to turn on her husband and aid FBI in their commitment of Ralph Yates. Dorothy was like many Dallas citizens who trusted the practiced authority of FBI and took them at their word. The perceived confirmed fact that Oswald was at work when Yates experienced his encounter was enough to convince people like Dorothy and Jones that Yates perhaps had gone off the deep end and needed help. This, of course, became a Twilight Zone nightmare for Yates who knew what he experienced was real only to have all the closest people around him, as well as the trusted authorities who were suppose seek and act on information like this, all conspire against him and call him crazy. A certain doubter flagrantly ignores the fact (and context) that Dorothy Yates got word of Oliver Stone generation revelations that made her come forward out of guilt over what she had done to her husband and tell assassination researchers that the FBI agent who participated in the polygraph pulled her aside and told her Ralph had passed the test. He didn't tell Dorothy Yates that Ralph was unemotional in his responses, he specifically told her the test showed Ralph was telling the truth.

This certain doubter says that if Yates' story was true the plotters would have used it to their advantage to further frame Oswald. He contends they would have adjusted Oswald's time card to make him late and therefore use this witnessing as prime evidence that Oswald was guilty. However in his rush to disprove Yates this doubter forgets that Oswald's co-workers could have disproven that story. A clear insurmountable conflict that would backfire on the plotters.

Taking the side of FBI against one of the worst victims of the assassination is one thing but doing it while ignoring clear evidence of his innocence is inexcusable in my opinion. As is the research community being luke warm and giving this betrayal of assassination research credibility and support. Like Charles Drago said - This is a war god damn it.


I'd like that certain doubter to honestly read this post here and answer it directly without any dodging ridicule or superfluous focusing on semantics and isolated words. Can someone get him to do that? There's a serious issue here of a researcher falsely accusing a serious victim. Let's see some of those "research standards".


.

[Miles Scull]

See for docs:

[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2974.0.html

[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html
[/URL]
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...176.0.html


[/URL]

[David Josephs]

See for docs:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...974.0.html

[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html
[/URL]
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...176.0.html

If nothing else... these links illustrate the desperate measures LNers without a clue about the evidence go to to rebut a well presented case.

and why we are so very thankful that the owners/mods here drew a line at the foot of these people...
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

DJ

The crux of the matter remains... do you believe unsigned, uncorroborated FBI reports done after the fact which go out of their way to discredit a witness who, in more cases than not, has to be very, very afraid to know something, or even THINK they know something related to the killing of their president... in 1963? Especially if the person believes he sat next to and spoke with the assassin just a few days before?

Can anyone post a FBI report similiar to this that actually makes Oswald look more innocent... about ANY subject, ANY sighting, ANYTHING?

"Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- to obvious..."

Lies "seem" too obvious... Facts "are" too obvious... The man works for JUSTICE... how are OBVIOUS FACTS, "unfortunate" in the proving of guilt?

[Miles Scull]

DJ, just want to make it clear that I'm not "attacking" Lee Farley, who does good work, as DiEugenio intemperately states.
I merely think that a careful examination of the total evidence, including all of the FBI docs, validates Yates and that Douglass' interpretation is correct.


Cheers

[Bill Kelly]

See for docs:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...974.0.html

[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4175.0.html
[/URL]
[URL="http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html"]http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,6540.0.html
[/URL]
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...176.0.html

If nothing else... these links illustrate the desperate measures LNers without a clue about the evidence go to to rebut a well presented case.

and why we are so very thankful that the owners/mods here drew a line at the foot of these people...
Thank you, thank you, thank you.

DJ

The crux of the matter remains... do you believe unsigned, uncorroborated FBI reports done after the fact which go out of their way to discredit a witness who, in more cases than not, has to be very, very afraid to know something, or even THINK they know something related to the killing of their president... in 1963? Especially if the person believes he sat next to and spoke with the assassin just a few days before?

Can anyone post a FBI report similiar to this that actually makes Oswald look more innocent... about ANY subject, ANY sighting, ANYTHING?

"Unfortunately, the facts on Oswald seem about too pat -- to obvious..."

Lies "seem" too obvious... Facts "are" too obvious... The man works for JUSTICE... how are OBVIOUS FACTS, "unfortunate" in the proving of guilt?

I don't think it is Lone Nutters without a clue who are the problem, as they can be ignored.

And I don't think those questioning Yates' story are Lone Nutters, but they are seriously trying to refine what we know, and determine what is the most important and significant evidence and what can be left out - that isn't up to standards of evidence that we use to determine what we believe.

BK
JFKcountercoup
JFKCountercoup2

[David Josephs]

DJ, just want to make it clear that I'm not "attacking" Lee Farely, who does good work, as DiEugenio intemperately states.
I merely think that a careful examination of the total evidence, including all of the FBI docs, validates Yates and that Douglass' interpretation is correct.


Cheers

Never thought that for a second Miles... Lee's points are well taken... yet only in context of their sources - which are very questionable as to their reliability.

That he chooses to fault YATES over the reporting of the FBI during this time is a surprise, that's all.

No doubt many bystanders wished to involve themselves in the case for attention, personnal reasons or pure insanity... J. Baker comes to mind.. and a thorough, skeptical examination SHOULD be done...
With Baker it's about what SHE SAID, not what the FBI REPORTS they say she said without her ever seeing it...

Are we to call Ms Arnold a liar when she says she saw Oswald at 12:15 in the lunchroom... or the FBI's reporting of it... or lack thereof.
Perry? Mercer? The list goes on and on.... ".. the paper does match..." "...the paper does NOT match..."

Until the FBI proves they got ANYTHING correct in the case I am going to lean toward the non-governmental witnesses' earliest statements as the most accurate in understanding what happened.
And try to weed the wackos from there

Good to see you posting again old friend
DJ

[David Josephs]

Bill,

Anyone with knowledge of the case spending more than a few days posting and defending any CT position at EF or JFKAssn... which I know you have...
is subject to LNer nonsense from a very specific list of people.

Ignoring them means not posting as they so infest the threads that normal discussion becomes impossible....

I truly wish the impression that anyone trying to clarify a story or who goes against a CT theory is branded a Lone Nutter... simply not true and I've never thought that way.

Lee and Greg and others have shown me the light many times in areas I thought I knew...
and have helped me see the evidence more clearly...

I did not want to find that the sources against YATES were FBI reports with no validity... yet that's what we find
as well as that he was consistent about his story AND was just another human being with strengths and weaknesses.

Did he embellish his story... possibly
Did he give a ride to someone that stuck in his mind and to his amazement and fear turns out to be so similar to Oswald, he feels it was? Yes, I believe so.
Do we wish to go forward in this case believing what the FBI reports say as opposed to the witnesses?

Hoover didn't even believe his own agency's report to the WC and says so three days after it comes out to his senior staff... why should we?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4513[/ATTACH]