Ralph Yates

[Miles Scull]

The validity & veracity of Yates' account confirmed by lack of signs of prevarication (lying) during a polygraph administered by the FBI.


http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s115/...7a27b4.jpg

[Albert Doyle]

You have to understand bureaucratic doubletalk when viewing these documents. Farley is apparently completely tone deaf to the fact the statement "Yates showed no emotional response to these questions" is just another way of saying "Yates registered truthful reactions to all these questions".

If you know how a polygraph works it detects the body's physical reactions or "emotional responses". So for them to say Yates showed no emotional responses is just another way of saying the test showed he wasn't lying. It is a way of lying about his positive results without having to go to hell.


Get it?


Those trying to find out the dates of information release for the details of Yates' story are just dawdling against the obvious. Notice they haven't found anything yet? I'll give you a hint. They never will.

This is the point where Charles Drago would advise not to prolong the discussion. And I think he'd be right.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I have never heard of not getting any reactions to control questions.

A control question is one in which the operator asks the witness a question that he can predict the outcome. HE does this to get good test readings to compare the relevant questions to.

An experienced operator knows the questions to ask here in order to get the desired result.

For instance, if he wants to get a truthful answer, he will ask him for the color of his car. OR how many kids he has. Or how long he has been married.

To get a negative response he will ask a question to which he thinks the witness will try and conceal something in order to get a deceptive criteria on the machine. These are easy to find or probe with. Since everyone has certain things they try and conceal. Usually of a personal nature.

To not to be able to get a reading on control questions is really unusual. I have heard of the other type, where the witness is so hyped up the machine is going off the rails. But to get no reaction at all, I don't think I have ever come across that.

[Albert Doyle]

A smart researcher will see the skeletal framework of what happened with Yates' polygraph in the form of how it was presented. FBI is operating under a covert overriding directive to bury any and all counter-official story information. This is a need-to-know national security matter so the agents don't question the motives or purpose. Hypothetically the FBI agents involved may have been lied to and told they were assigned to prevent leaks on a communist operation that had successfully assassinated the president. With this directive in mind they have a witness who strongly insists he witnessed a conspirator and won't back off his story. Truthful investigation of this witnessing will unavoidably expose the plot.

The FBI then gives this witness a polygraph that indicates he is telling the truth. According to FBI law the covert national security directive then overrides this normal procedure. With this mentality in mind the FBI agents therefore feel they are given license to exert this national security order over normal rule of law ethics. They know that lying about the true results of the polygraph is a pretty serious legal offense so they have to cloak their deception in language that will let them get away with outright lying while not damning themselves.

You can see from the bureaucratic doubletalk they used that they didn't quite want to condemn themselves by their own words by directly lying that the test showed Yates wasn't telling the truth. The polygraph senses stress and body reactions caused by a person who is trying to pass-off something he knows isn't true. The truth flows and lies take some effort to construct and avoid natural guilt over. A lie will cause muscle tightening, increased breathing, and other nervous responses that register at the electronic sensor level as the mind worries about incriminating conflicts and getting caught. This can generally be called "emotional responses". Meanwhile a truthful person is relaxed and casual and feels no reasons for stress when answering the questions. This shows up on the polygraph as relaxed chart lines that flow without any wiggles.

So FBI had a problem where it needed to construct semantics that would satisfy their need to obey their national security orders while not directly lying about the true test results. The simple answer was to use the wording "Yates showed no emotional responses to the questions". In other words Yates showed no wiggles or stress reactions to the questions. His chart lines flowed smoothly without any observable reactions. In a very perverted interpretation of the results FBI said the results were "inconclusive". Yes, this is factual if one is viewing them in terms of trying to find proof Yates was lying as Hoover indicated they had failed to do with an investigation of his whereabouts. - All factual and truthful if viewed through the multifaceted viewpoint of the room full of mirrors...


Once you understand this basic thing and its relationship to Yates' story you realize it confirms he was telling the truth.


On the covert chessboard polygraph checkmates all other lesser moves...

[Albert Doyle]

Farley continues to ask questions for which there are easy answers. Frazier, Mercer, and Litchfield all had reasons why they could be side-stepped. Yates, on the other hand, had a witness to a key set of critical Oswald-related evidence 2 days prior that couldn't be so easily explained away. Farley refuses to view this in terms of the overall collective evidence and insists on a myopic piece by piece treatment of the facts. Seeing Oswald with Ruby can be shrugged-off as a mistaken identification. Mercer too. Frazier had pressure put on him as a possible collaborator that may have worked, dispensing the need for more drastic actions. Yates, on the other hand, was too far over the hurdle of seriously incriminating evidence that couldn't be refuted so easily and he wouldn't back-down. His family mental health history made him more vulnerable to mental collapse and FBI exploited it. There's no way Yates would "feign" mental collapse and then escape from the asylum with the claim people were trying to kill him and then return and stick with that "feigning" for 11 years up until his death.

The polygraph decides this. Yates was telling the truth.

[Albert Doyle]

Von Pein is easy to refute. His offerings have the visible appearance of dishonesty. His posts are mendacious and survive only by following a strict plan of ridicule and evasion when confronted by the obvious.

It isn't outrageous that the CIA double Yates encountered would mention the Carousel Club. There's too many permutations in the plot to list, however this involvement of the Carousel could have been meaningful at some layer of the plot amongst different levels of players. Who knows how they were induced to get involved or how the Carousel was involved in the frame-up. Maybe it was meant to implicate Ruby at some unknown level.

If you step out of Von Pein's contrived scenario and just look at the fact Ruby shot Oswald you already have a total implication of both the Carousel and the plot in that alone. So how did the plotters handle that? They shut Ruby down and used some of the same tactics they used against Yates against Ruby. Unless, of course, you believe a two-bit mafia nightclub owner gave his life to defend Jackie Kennedy's honor.

The mention of the Carousel alone does not relieve doubters of answering both the 5 key critical points of Oswald-related evidence or the polygraph. The Carousel had a lot of warts associated with it beyond the CIA Oswald double's mention of it. All the evidence associated with it had to go through the same Dallas Police, FBI, Warren Commission bottlenecks anyway. So really, any mention of it by any CIA double would be neutralized just like those other references were through the same apparatus.

One conceivable explanation for this mention could be that they were going to implicate Ruby in the plot in order to blackmail him into shooting Oswald. This was a complex conspiracy involving many rooms. Mention of the Carousel could be used to compromise Ruby and justify alternative plans. Or it could be used to convince Ruby Oswald had screwed-up and exposed the Carousel and needed quick dispatching.

I like Von Pein's last reply because I've never seen him flop with such an audible dull thud before or be so conspicuously reaching in desperation. This is good. Von Pein is really starting to stretch so far that he isn't quite reaching all his holding points.

[Keith Millea]

Albert,

Seeing as you're having a one-way debate here which involves another forum and their members.I suggest you get in touch with John Simpkin and see if you can join his forum.You know,like having a real honest discussion/debate.

So mods,are cross forum debates the new normal now? :noblesteed:

[Miles Scull]

Readers might like to see indirect validation of Yates' report of an Oswald impersonator.

See docs here:

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/ind...918.0.html

[Albert Doyle]

That would be something if Moore witnessed somebody who would drop that very wallet next to Tippit's body a few hours later...


The precise date of Yates' witnessing is immaterial because Jones 1) Admitted he and Yates had conversation about sniping JFK in the Plaza 2) That both this and Yates' encounter happened prior to the assassination.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Albert,

Seeing as you're having a one-way debate here which involves another forum and their members.I suggest you get in touch with John Simpkin and see if you can join his forum.You know,like having a real honest discussion/debate.

So mods,are cross forum debates the new normal now? :noblesteed:

Keith - thank you.

Cross forum debates are not the new normal here at DPF, and we would only allow a link to the Swamp in the most exceptional and putrid of circumstances.

Albert - if you want to debate comments made by the tool Von Pein at the Education Forum, kindly take a dive into the Black Lagoon....