Ralph Yates

[Bob Prudhomme]

Excellent post, Albert. It often makes me wonder if those CT'ers condemning Mr. Yates are not what they appear to be.

[Albert Doyle]

Some of the boys at the ReopenKennedyCase forum aren't too bright because they don't have the detective smarts to figure out that Frazier's curtain rod story could have come from the same spooks that told the Yates hitch-hiker Oswald double to use the same story in advance. This would be evidence that the curtain rod package was an ongoing game plan formulated by those conspirators who planned to smuggle in the rifle in a long brown paper package. In no way is Farley's claim dismissive as they allege. That site is a classic case of gang-think.

Again, Farley is just in plain dumb-headed contempt of the fact Yates passed his lie detector test. If Farley needs that explained to him it means the lie detector proved all the things he dismisses were true. That's why FBI committed Yates.

[Drew Phipps]

Not to pick nits here, but technically the polygraph just proves either you are an accomplished liar, or that you actually believe what you are saying to be true (not that you are right). But it does appear that the commitment was bogus. I have to wonder if the first commitment was voluntary, since the wife drove him there, and if so, when that changed. There must be court documents accompanying an involuntary commitment.

[Albert Doyle]

Yates was a person who was witnessed by Dempsey Jones telling the story of the weird shooting the president from an office building with a high powered rifle hitch-hiker. The reason he was committed was because he refused to back down from what he knew to be true. FBI tested Yates straight without doctoring the polygraph like they did with Ruby. The give-away is that FBI's questions to Dempsey Jones were designed to malign Yates and question his character. A thing seen with other witnesses who were a danger to the cover-up.

The reason the polygraph is valid is because Dempsey Jones witnessed Yates telling the story in advance. That gives it credibility and a second witness for those interested in honestly evaluating the case. Blind doubters avoid giving any direct answer to this and always seek some sort of forced sophist out (not you Drew) just like they conspicuously avoid admitting that the curtain rod story didn't necessarily originate from Frazier. While loudly protesting this isn't evidence those dishonest doubters don't admit their case is even weaker and ignores the grain of the evidence. They also ignore a pattern of FBI doing this in other areas of the assassination. If the plotters could set-up a brown paper wrapper, like they did, it is not as far-fetched as they protest that those same plotters could formulate a curtain rod story. If you want to see where the truth lay just look at where the doubters troll the loudest. I think most smart people would be able to see a dishonest liar pretending he is really wanting to get to the truth when his means of doing that is ignoring the obvious. The FBI man told Dorothy Yates Ralph passed the polygraph and it showed he was telling the truth (because he was). Only a fool would join with FBI and their criminal Gestapo tactics in breaking a real witness. The lack of fear or hesitation on the behalf of those great sophist doubters has a Nazi sort of vibe. Sort of like a pack of jackals going after a victim for the shear evil of it.

Ye shall know them by their trolling...

[Albert Doyle]

Smarter and more honest researchers would realize that the fact Jones said Yates told him about the hitch-hiker, because the hitch-hiker had coincidentally repeated the same story about shooting JFK from an office building, automatically precludes the source of this story being mental illness. It proves the story was based on fact and its origin was based on an event a second party confirmed. Only a fool would ignore this, take the side of the FBI murderers, and use their exact method of impugning Yates' mental status without hesitating or feeling a need for caution. Only fools would contend both Yates and Jones decided to invent this crazy story out of nowhere.

It's kind of stupid to take the word of FBI murderers that Yates' lie detector test was "inconclusive" when FBI had a motive to deny Yates' witnessing. Smart researchers would see that FBI lied when it said "inconclusive" in order to cover-up the real truth-verifying result that they privately admitted to Dorothy. Those doubters, of course, contend that Dorothy also decided to invent a nutty story while they defend the FBI in the assassination (duh). Those doubters are really "Skeptics". If you check out the Randi Skeptic site it is populated by similar Lone Nut trolls with similar methods.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Smarter and more honest researchers would realize that the fact Jones said Yates told him about the hitch-hiker, because the hitch-hiker had coincidentally repeated the same story about shooting JFK from an office building, automatically precludes the source of this story being mental illness. It proves the story was based on fact and its origin was based on an event a second party confirmed. Only a fool would ignore this, take the side of the FBI murderers, and use their exact method of impugning Yates' mental status without hesitating or feeling a need for caution. Only fools would contend both Yates and Jones decided to invent this crazy story out of nowhere.

It's kind of stupid to take the word of FBI murderers that Yates' lie detector test was "inconclusive" when FBI had a motive to deny Yates' witnessing. Smart researchers would see that FBI lied when it said "inconclusive" in order to cover-up the real truth-verifying result that they privately admitted to Dorothy. Those doubters, of course, contend that Dorothy also decided to invent a nutty story while they defend the FBI in the assassination (duh).

Hi Albert

I've looked everywhere I can think of on the Net and have been unable to find a statement from Dempsey Jones regarding what he told the FBI about his discussion with Ralph Yates about the hitchhiker. I know there are many detractors on this matter that claim Yates made everything up but, until I see exactly what Jones said to the FBI, I myself am undecided on this matter.

Of course, the FBI "statement" from Mr. Jones will likely be another one of the infamous, unsigned, third party reports the FBI is famous for and was able to build an entire case against LHO with. As Carolyn Arnold and others would have attested to, the FBI was not at all shy about editing and altering information in these reports, and saw no good reason to tell anyone the facts had been altered, especially the person the report is supposedly quoting.


The mere fact a certain friend of ours at ROKC quotes these FBI reports with such unabashed enthusiasm seriously makes me wonder where his loyalties lie.

[Albert Doyle]

That site should have a containment dome sealing it so the noxious virus it harbors won't spread. Notice how they never answer a point directly. Only through equivocation, trolling, or evasive sophistry.



http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120418.htm

[Drew Phipps]

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archi...PageId=424

Mary Ferrell has the 2 page FBI report of Dempsey Jones; it is unsigned.

[Bob Prudhomme]

Thanks for posting that, Drew. Silly me, first place I should have looked for that is the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

How interesting that Mr. Jones recalls discussing the hitchhiker Ralph Yates picked up prior to the assassination. Three important things stand out that would have been impossible to guess at before the assassination:

1. The hitchhiker got out at Houston & Elm.
2. The hitchhiker was carrying a package.
3. The hitchhiker discussed the fact that one could be in a building and shoot the President as he, the President, passed by.

As this FBI report regarding Dempsey Jones was in the third party and unsigned (and likely never seen by Mr. Jones), we can only guess at what else Mr. Jones had to say that was omitted by the FBI.

The odds of this kind of incident happening by coincidence are somewhat incredible, to say the least. I read an old thread on the Ed Forum where our "friend" went to great lengths to discredit Ralph Yates. David Josephs posted the FBI Dempsey Jones report and pointed out the significance of it to our friend. For the next several pages, our friend and David von Pain had it out with the great researcher Sean Murphy, tag teaming poor Sean and throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. Unfortunately for this pair, Mr. Murphy has more debating talent in his little finger than the two of them together can produce, and he basically handed their butts to them.

One thing I found strange; during the course of this thread, both our friend and DVP used many similar phrases in their posts, such as "C'mon, Sean". Just another coincidence?

[Magda Hassan]

The odds of this kind of incident happening by coincidence are somewhat incredible, to say the least. I read an old thread on the Ed Forum where our "friend" went to great lengths to discredit Ralph Yates. David Josephs posted the FBI Dempsey Jones report and pointed out the significance of it to our friend. For the next several pages, our friend and David von Pain had it out with the great researcher Sean Murphy, tag teaming poor Sean and throwing everything but the kitchen sink at him. Unfortunately for this pair, Mr. Murphy has more debating talent in his little finger than the two of them together can produce, and he basically handed their butts to them.

One thing I found strange; during the course of this thread, both our friend and DVP used many similar phrases in their posts, such as "C'mon, Sean". Just another coincidence?

Most informative Bob! And one reason we don't have the lone nutters here. Too much time wasted dealing with their designed and circular crap. We want to case to move forward not get stuck going over and over the same discredited red herrings. The work of researchers can and should be tested by other researchers but only those with good intentions of progressing our understanding not that of blocking, denying and disappearing the evidence found.