Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» ROKC Lampoon
Today at 4:14 pm by Stan Dane

» Shirley Temple is Prayer Man According to Duncan McRae
Today at 2:01 pm by steely dan

» Prayer Man Vs Sasquatch
Today at 1:23 pm by steely dan

» The Bold and the Italics
Yesterday at 9:06 am by greg parker

» The Eighth Naval District
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 11:33 pm by Hasan Yusuf

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 8:08 pm by barto

» Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt1
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 11:58 am by barto

» JFK Assassination
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 7:15 am by jack ferguson

» Lifton on his "new evidence"
Thu 08 Dec 2016, 4:47 am by steely dan

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking Digg  Social bookmarking Delicious  Social bookmarking Reddit  Social bookmarking Stumbleupon  Social bookmarking Slashdot  Social bookmarking Furl  Social bookmarking Yahoo  Social bookmarking Google  Social bookmarking Blinklist  Social bookmarking Blogmarks  Social bookmarking Technorati  

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



Rushoman to Judgement

Page 6 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Tue 09 Apr 2013, 5:53 am

No problem, Lee. If I find the time tomorrow, I'll do some more research into Crafard (the damn Don Thomas review is taking forever to write!).

If I'm reading you correctly, you believe that Crafard was the Tippit killer, and that he shot Tippit at 1:08 pm? I think that Crafard could very well have been the killer, and FWIW, I think Tippit was shot at 1:06pm.

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-tippit-murder-unresolved-issues_23.html

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Tue 09 Apr 2013, 6:30 am

Hasan Yusuf wrote:No problem, Lee. If I find the time tomorrow, I'll do some more research into Crafard (the damn Don Thomas review is taking forever to write!).

If I'm reading you correctly, you believe that Crafard was the Tippit killer, and that he shot Tippit at 1:08 pm? I think that Crafard could very well have been the killer, and FWIW, I think Tippit was shot at 1:06pm.

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-tippit-murder-unresolved-issues_23.html

He was running away at 1:08 PM. lol!

Then thumbed a lift with Gerry Hill. cheers

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Tue 09 Apr 2013, 6:56 am

Lol!

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Wed 10 Apr 2013, 9:57 am

Greg, you ask whether I've checked Armstrong's claims even once. I respond with a similarly-toned question, "Have you ever objectively evaluated Armstrong's Harvey & Lee theory? Or more broadly put- evidence for a doppelganger?"

I remind you a couple years ago, I informed you that the historic Oswald's autopsy report contained indications of his left tricep scar from shooting himself in the barracks at Atsugi- thus putting a significant chink in Armstrong's narrative, in which the "evil twin" Lee Oswald was stationed at Atsugi during this timeframe. That information is posted somewhere on this website.

Case in point: this Dorothy Marcum business. Have a look at WCD 4 p. 795:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docid=10405&relPageId=807

HUBERT BRADEN and his attorney WARWICK JENKINS were. to all appearances, customers at Dorothy's place of employment on Tuesday, November 26. They overheard her saying to fellow employees that her aunt had related that "OSWALD had worked for JACK RUBY in June or July, 1963. DOROTHY MARKHAM (sic) also indicated during this conversation that she had once dated JACK RUBY during the past year."

Why shouldn't I believe BRADEN, who went to the FBI the next day, offering his lawyer as a co-witness? It sounds to me like Dorothy was gabbing away in a braggert manner the first day back to work after the assassination. It looks to me like she denied it in order to keep her name out of the newspapers.

Lee, you don't even seem to be listening when I've mentioned that a) Yates could have chosen to drop the HH at Industrial instead of at the edge of downtown b) Exit ramps 425B (Ewing) and 425C (Marsalis) are much closer to Ruby's apartment than the Beckley Street ramp.

And we don't know that the FBI DID NOT look at Yates' whereabouts for November 20. They may have, much more than at Charlie's Meat Market. All we know is that the FBI had insufficient evidence to say whether or not Yates was in Oak Cliff. For the 20th or 21st.

It's understandable to me, after the cataclysmic weekend, that Yates spaced out on whether he'd picked up the HH on the previous Wednesday or Thursday. Thursday's eliminated because there is enough data to peg Yates' whereabouts. Wednesday cannot be eliminated because of a lack of such data.

I can't hang my hat on SA Arthur Carter's wretched prose, suggesting Dempsey Jones said the initial conversation with Yates took place "the day before the President was shot." It looks to me to be a case of "hoping to suggest". Were the facts clearly presented they should have been clearly stated.

All told, it's high-caliber research, but it seems all hashed out right now and in need of a rest. Take heart, be of good cheer. Three times as many researcher s believe the Yates/Crafard hypothesis, as believe the hypothesis that Eddie Piper was the sniper's nest shooter. cat

And it sounds like whoever talks turkey with Crafard will have the scoop of the century.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Wed 10 Apr 2013, 10:57 am

Richard Gilbride wrote:Greg, you ask whether I've checked Armstrong's claims even once. I respond with a similarly-toned question, "Have you ever objectively evaluated Armstrong's Harvey & Lee theory? Or more broadly put- evidence for a doppelganger?"

Richard, you know I have looked at individual cases. One example - I have identified Myra DeRouse's "Harvey" as a little kid by the name of Bobby Newman who hung out with Voebel and Oswald.
http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t227-armstrong-s-magic-tooth-and-the-facts-about-harvey-at-beauregard

I remind you a couple years ago, I informed you that the historic Oswald's autopsy report contained indications of his left tricep scar from shooting himself in the barracks at Atsugi- thus putting a significant chink in Armstrong's narrative, in which the "evil twin" Lee Oswald was stationed at Atsugi during this timeframe. That information is posted somewhere on this website.

Thanks for the reminder.

Case in point: this Dorothy Marcum business. Have a look at WCD 4 p. 795:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docid=10405&relPageId=807

HUBERT BRADEN and his attorney WARWICK JENKINS were. to all appearances, customers at Dorothy's place of employment on Tuesday, November 26. They overheard her saying to fellow employees that her aunt had related that "OSWALD had worked for JACK RUBY in June or July, 1963. DOROTHY MARKHAM (sic) also indicated during this conversation that she had once dated JACK RUBY during the past year."

Why shouldn't I believe BRADEN, who went to the FBI the next day, offering his lawyer as a co-witness? It sounds to me like Dorothy was gabbing away in a braggert manner the first day back to work after the assassination. It looks to me like she denied it in order to keep her name out of the newspapers.

I'm sorry. I should have been clearer. My gripe has little to do with which witnesses are more credible - it's that Armstrong just ignores statements and witnesses he doesn't like and so his readers don't get a chance to weigh all the evidence themselves.

Here is what Armstrong said in his 1999 presentation:

In the summer 1963, while Harvey was working at the Reilly Coffee Company in New Orleans, Lee was living in Dallas, Texas. Marshall Hicks, an employee of Western Union, delivered several telegrams to Oswald at 1501 W. 7th, in Fort Worth. Jack Ruby's girlfriend, Dorothy Marcum, remembered that Oswald worked for Ruby.

He just states it as a cold fact - no mention at all that she denied it. And that is just plain wrong.

On the general issue of "doppelgangers" - I thoroughly refute the notion that their was a CIA program involving two kids of different nationalities, two mothers and whatever else...

There does seem to have been genuine attempts at impersonating Oswald - but those ones I see as genuine, were marked by the use of his name and/or ID. That alone, knocks the Yates case out as a genuine attempt at impersonation.

Apologies for any antagonism, Richard. It gets exasperating when you think something is perfectly clear, but others just don't see it the same way. Fact is, this type of research does need to be questioned, tested, probed and etc. It needs to be able hold up under all that. But there also comes a time when the same points and arguments are just being recycled on certain issues, and it's better to just move on to the next issue.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3453
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 11 Apr 2013, 9:30 pm

Richard Gilbride wrote:

Lee, you don't even seem to be listening when I've mentioned that a) Yates could have chosen to drop the HH at Industrial instead of at the edge of downtown b) Exit ramps 425B (Ewing) and 425C (Marsalis) are much closer to Ruby's apartment than the Beckley Street ramp.

And we don't know that the FBI DID NOT look at Yates' whereabouts for November 20. They may have, much more than at Charlie's Meat Market. All we know is that the FBI had insufficient evidence to say whether or not Yates was in Oak Cliff. For the 20th or 21st.

It's understandable to me, after the cataclysmic weekend, that Yates spaced out on whether he'd picked up the HH on the previous Wednesday or Thursday. Thursday's eliminated because there is enough data to peg Yates' whereabouts. Wednesday cannot be eliminated because of a lack of such data.

I can't hang my hat on SA Arthur Carter's wretched prose, suggesting Dempsey Jones said the initial conversation with Yates took place "the day before the President was shot." It looks to me to be a case of "hoping to suggest". Were the facts clearly presented they should have been clearly stated.

All told, it's high-caliber research, but it seems all hashed out right now and in need of a rest. Take heart, be of good cheer. Three times as many researcher s believe the Yates/Crafard hypothesis, as believe the hypothesis that Eddie Piper was the sniper's nest shooter. cat

And it sounds like whoever talks turkey with Crafard will have the scoop of the century.

Richard,

I can appreciate some of the reasons why my rocking the boat on this topic has ruffled feathers. I won't point fingers at anyone else concerning the heat that has been generated because I've created quite a bit of it.

I'm listening to you, mate. I really am. Unlike my approach to other researcher's criticism I generally digest your replies and wait a while before responding. I respect you and your work. On this Yates incident, however, a part of me cannot understand why you are so narrowly focussed in your responses and it reached a stage where no matter what was presented (unless I managed to lay my hands on a photograph of Larry Crafard in Ralph Yates truck) you were never, ever, going to consider it a more likely possibility than the one presented by Armstrong and Douglass.

Not one researcher, on any forum, has levelled any criticism, whatsoever, regarding the way in which Dougalss and Armstrong presented their stories based upon the experiences of Ralph Yates. When the simple fact of the matter is they cherry picked what they wanted.

You know what the experience is like when you suddenly become bombarded by criticism from a number of people. Each person levels their criticism in a slightly different way based upon a unique set of beliefs, opinions and ideas. It reaches a point where you can no longer answer it all without getting more criticism because people begin to fire at you disagreement that what you respond with is not what they have said. It get's so confusing as to what one person has said versus another that you simply go on all out offensive. Fight or flight in action. I've never been one to run away.

My problem with what has been presented is that there is so much conflict and contradiction between the different arguments that have been slung my way. Sean Murphy, who I really think is an ace researcher but I will admit he was seriously beginning to piss me off, was adamant we have to stick with the Dempsey quote from the FBI report that Yates told him, before the assassination, that he dropped the HH off at Houston and Elm. I disagree that the report is that clear and so do you. The reason I say that is because you do not want to accept that Dempsey Jones claimed with certainty that the initial conversation took place "the day before the President was shot." When in reality this statement is 100% clearer than the statement about dropping the HH off at Houston and Elm.

One thing I will agree with you about is this; Yates may have been "spaced out" that weekend and struggled to remember the exact day that's this incident took place. The reason I will agree with you is because I think it probable that Yates was on medication to treat "something." What that something was is anyone's guess because we'll more than likely never know. This is the only way, I believe, a young man would struggle to remember the day such a memorable event took place just a few days later. If he was mentally healthy then the man, IMO, should have had no problem remembering whether it was Wednesday or Thursday of the previous work week.

My answer to the location of the HH pickup is simple; if it was Crafard then we just do not know where he had been or what he was doing before being picked up. I totally understand that there were a multitude of different places he could have been picked up.

I simply will not accept, at this point in time, that the conversation took place about "window shades" or "curtain rods." I'm asked to accept Yates either withholding information or embellishing his story but very few are willing to accept that the "curtain rods" and "window shades" as an embellishment? An "embellishment" is a lie, Richard, no matter how one cares to dress it up. The photograph IMO is also an "embellishment." If I mention the "window shades" to "curtain rods" discrepancy the criticisers they are either quiet on the question or they are contorting themselves into a thousand different shapes to try explaining it away. The truth is, there's only one logical way to explain it away. He added it in after he'd read about it or heard it on TV.

Oswald, as far as we know, was never a hitchhiker. Crafard was a seasoned hitchhiker and we have reports of him hitchhiking to California in 1957 from Michigan. We have reports of him hitchhiking in Dallas. We know he hitchhiked back to Michigan from Dallas on 11/23. We've presented about ten different reports from people who thought he was Lee Oswald and these reports are from sightings all over Dallas, not just the Carousel. His "boss" lived in Oak Cliff and we've discovered some interesting stuff about Crafard's brother-in-law.

Here is the only question I'm interested in answering right now based upon what I know; did Crafard know he was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald or was he oblivious to it?

Over the last several days things have moved on quite quickly for me and I think I'm about ready to present something that may (fingers crossed) change the way we look at the Crafard story. I need your help but I really need an open mind. I expect the biggest shit-storm I've ever created, but if I'm right? Well, who knows,...

This evening I'll be throwing something out there that may make you think I'm on Ralph Yates' happy pills bounce


Last edited by Lee David Farley on Thu 11 Apr 2013, 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 11 Apr 2013, 9:53 pm

Lee, very well-expressed. Any new interpretation, even if apparently true, simply takes time to settle in and take root. Even Max Planck, the discoverer of the quantum nature of atoms, remarked that real progress in physics doesn't occur until a whole generation of physicists dies off. Meaning they're too obstinate to accept a new paradigm.

I'm still waiting for the community to embrace the Piper hypothesis. pirat

Crafard's got more secrets than Frazier, if you ask me. Gotta get to work.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Thu 11 Apr 2013, 10:23 pm

Thank you both.

I believe some heads are gonna spin.

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3453
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Fri 12 Apr 2013, 5:56 am

Guys,

In the link below, there are some interesting questions and speculation that Larry Crafard may have been William Whaley's passenger instead of Oswald! There's also some interesting questions concerning Bledsoe.

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/25586/rec/14 (Pages 2 to 4).


Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 7:23 am

Here's a quote from the dick-head that is known as Albert Doyle. Reading through this steaming pile of shit I suddenly began to realise why Charles Drago suspected that this idiot was Jim Fetzer in disguise:

"Farley is trying to push the Crafard theory. I have to admit he makes some good points but only does so by ignoring the conflicting evidence.

Crafard had no front teeth. If Yates had the interchange with the hitch-hiker he claimed then I don't think he would have missed noticing Crafard's lack of front teeth. I assume Yates was shown Oswald's picture enough that he saw Oswald had a nice intact set of front teeth. Also, I assume FBI grilled Yates enough to ask him if the hitch-hiker had any identifying features. Lack of front teeth would be a pretty good identifying feature.

A more truthful analysis of Yates' claim would show that the hitch-hiker refused to stop talking about shooting Kennedy from a high building. Farley is trying to minimize the full significance of the exact rendering of Yates' experience in order to push the Crafard theory, however he doesn't quite give adequate recognition to the full facts and what they signify. If you pay attention Farley is saying Yates embellished the Ruby part but then adds that Crafard would be likely to mention Ruby out of pride.

What Farley also conspicuously excludes is the fact we have known Oswald impersonation events in Dallas that were very definitely not Crafard. So who were they? Once you establish this you have to ask where the impostors stop and where the Crafard misidentifications start? Not all witnessings in Dallas were Crafard. So it has to be considered that this hitch-hiker was one of the non-Crafard impostors. And since we know that this was a coup therefore saying it was a CIA double should not be mocked so quickly.

In his attempt to force his Crafard theory over the more analyzed facts Farley forgets that a woman applying for a job at the Carousel saw an Oswald figure come in the back door and Ruby refer to him as "Ozzy". Farley is deluding himself that the entire Ruby/Cuban exile/CIA underground both Ruby and Oswald were connected to suddenly disappears along with the obvious chance that it was Oswald or a CIA double the job applicant witnessed.

Farley's confusion claim is very weak because any look at the conspiracy will show they already created conflicts with the auto-dealer Oswald, along with the rifle range Oswald, the Ryder and Whitworth Oswald, along with many other examples - including the Bernard Haire Oswald.

This all comes down to the polygraph results Farley is ignoring. What part of the FBI agent telling Dorothy Yates Ralph passed the test does Farley not understand? I assume the test included questions about the package, Ruby, destinations, and conversation. Once you accept this you then have to ask, even if it was Crafard, why did he show a photo of Oswald in the classic backyard pose and why did he insist on talking about shooting Kennedy? These things more than show there was much more to this event than Yates casually picking-up Crafard. The fact the polygraph validated Yates' version shows that there are serious questions about the hitch-hiker Farley's inadequate version hasn't answered that anyone pretending to seek the truth about Yates' could not avoid.

Funny how the waitress at Dobbs missed the fact that the Oswald double she witnessed had no front teeth. Hmm.

Farley makes a huge gaffe in not realizing a basic thing. Even if it was Crafard why didn't he tell the Commission this? Could it be perhaps because he was sent on a mission by Ruby to set-up Oswald and deliver a rifle to the Depository?"

END OF QUOTE

Is this toss-pot so wrapped up inside his own arsehole that he can't answer his own fucking questions? Is it not possible to untangle the bias that his own opinions are caught up in to, just for one fucking second, think about how much of a dumbass he actually is?

Sorry for the language, boys, but this guy is an utter fucking clown.

The question of the teeth. Does this dumb-fuck actually think that Larry Crafard walked around all day looking like Mr. Fucking-Ed? Jim Carey in The Mask? My own father doesn't have his upper front four teeth. Knocked out playing Rugby. Not totally noticeable until, wait for it, he smiles at you or laughs while he's looking directly at you. On other occasions he'll smile and laugh and you can't tell he's got no front teeth because, wait for it, he's put his fucking dentures in.

Call me a tit, but they did have dentures in 1963 didn't they? Granted we don't know for a fact that he had dentures made, but we don't know for a fac that he didn't either.

The simple fact of the very simple matter is this, Crafard was confused for Oswald. NUMEROUS TIMES. FRONT TEETH MISSING OR NO FRONT TEETH MISSING. HE WAS CONFUSED FOR HIM. Is Albert Knob-Head Doyle going to refute the Robert Patterson sighting or does he instead think that stating his own opinion that people would have noticed the missing teeth is a valid form of evidence? Dumb-ass.

And lastly on the Yates issue. Was Ralph Yates French-kissing Crafard or driving a fucking car?

Next the fucking woman applying for a job at the Carousel being told Crafard was "Ozzy." Great. Maybe "Ozzy" slept in the same dingy fucking room as Crafard next to big Jack's office? In a drawer of a filing cabinet. Ruby sure liked keeping a lid on his CIA conspiracy didn't he? Was this Ruby setting HIMSELF up as the alternative patsy?

As I said to Richard, there's no end to Albert Doyle. He's a pest. He's repeating the same fucking things that he was saying a good few weeks ago. I've moved on so much, and he's still going on about Dorothy Yates saying the FBI told her that Yates passed the polygraph.

So fucking what? What the fuck does that prove?

Rant over.

BTW, Greg, here's what the shithead has to say about you:

"Greg Parker is just a useless sophist who is arrogant enough to think his bombastic doubt is a viable form of argument. He pretends that doubt has grabbed the center and is the most viable approach to the matter. But anyone with any basic common sense can see they haven't answered how toothless Crafard could be mistaken for Oswald"

Please feel free to edit this post, Greg...

...and add in any further Bertie Doyle insults you feel are necessary. Shocked

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 8:00 am

I think your language is totally appropriate, Lee. Doyle can go to hell for all I care. He's a fucking twit. I wonder what he's gonna call me since I support the Crafard theory as well.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Robert Charles-Dunne on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 9:26 am

Lee. I shouldn’t worry too much about Doyle, were I you. While I know nothing about him, he seems not to have impressed the membership of DPF, and his current charm offensive at Lancer is repelling rather than recruiting possible believers.

Crafard being toothless didn’t prevent others from mistaking him for Oswald, so Yates - focused on driving - either didn’t notice, or thought nothing of it. Or Crafard had dentures. Take your pick of answers, but they are all reasonable and mundane enough for one of them to be true.

To be fair, your initial posts claimed that Yates was a discredited witness, peddling a story too far fetched to be true, largely the product of mental illness. Moreover, his story had no direct bearing on the assassination, and certainly wasn’t evidence of a CIA imposture plot, by your ken.

To assert this as a proven fact is at least part of the reason why you experienced pushback from others. Now it seems that even you are not entirely certain it is a proven fact.

Since taking a more recent tangent into the view that the HH was Larry Crafard, Yates’ story has been somewhat rehabilitated, even in your own view, albeit still not a CIA operation, which seems (by my reading at least) to be the most singular hypothesis you’d like to debunk.

However, here and elsewhere there have been comments made asserting that Crafard would be (and may have been) the perfect intelligence operative, with citations to others who believed it to perhaps be true. If there is confusion sown, perhaps it is at least in part from the evolution of your own hypothesis, which remains in flux. As it should, in my opinion.

In the above respects, at least, it seems to have veered from one extreme to another. The hitchhiker who meant little or nothing has become the hitchhiker who means much indeed, if he is Larry Crafard.

I agree with Sean Murphy that your interpretation about what Yates told Jones re: dropping the HH at Houston and Elm is almost certainly in error. It seems Jones, or FBI, went to at least some nominal trouble to distinguish between what Jones was initially told by Yates, and what came after the assassination. I submit it requires a skewed reading of the text to achieve the conclusion you have inferred from it. Could be po-tay-to, po-tat-o, but not the way I read the doc.

That said, there is no doubt that the timing of the central events as related by Yates, Jones and boss Gilpin contain discrepancies, are mutually contradictory and cannot all be accurate, let alone reconciled. It may be that these can be at least partly resolved and rationalized by looking at November 20, the other date Yates first contended may have been the one on which he encountered the hitchhiker..

At the risk of beating a dead horse further into the ground, I would ask that attention be paid to what FBI made - or didn’t make - of Yates’ whereabouts on November 20. To justify why he’d been in Oak Cliff, Yates stated that he’d gone to Charlie’s Ranch Meat Market to pick up a small cheque for payment due his employer, and left after obtaining it.

As you have noted, FBI interviewed Charlie’s employees Thomas Ayres and Donald Mask. Both men asserted that they had been at work on that date, neither man recalled having given Yates a cheque on that date, adding that such payments were usually once monthly, rather than as work was done.

It seems fairly straightforward. Except....

Neither of Charlie’s men interviewed by FBI seems to have been asked whether or not Ralph Yates had been there that day.

Pardon my suspicious nature, but wasn’t the very purpose of FBI’s visit to Charlie’s specifically to determine whether Yates had been there that day? If so, did FBI ask each man if Yates had been there that day? Apparently not. Does the next logical question going unasked and unanswered strike one as something of a major oversight? Or is it just me?

The absence of a cheque may or may not have dispensed with Yates’ purported alibi for being in Oak Cliff, but it didn’t determine whether or not Yates had been there, which was, after all, FBI’s mission at Charlie’s. Time and again in this Yates case, I am struck by what FBI ought reasonably to have done next, but didn’t. This is not the only instance, as I’ve already alluded to previously. We’ll soon encounter another.

Note that neither of Charlie’s employees recalled “giving” a cheque to a TBSC employee on the dates in question. Because there is a difference between “writing” a cheque and “giving” one, it raises the matter of what positions the FBI-interviewed Charlie’s employees held. Each is described only as “employee.” Each said he didn’t recall “giving” rather than “writing” a cheque.

If they weren’t the one(s) writing the cheques - and they don’t seem to have been based on the perfunctory FBI depictions of them - did FBI speak with whomever did write the cheques? I’ve seen nothing on this, but if such exists, I’d appreciate a link or citation.

Arguendo, if payment from Charlie’s was overdue, and arrangements had been made to pick up a cheque, it may have already been written on some date well prior to November 20. To counter this, it needs to be noted we have the FBI report saying: “THOMAS AYRES reviewed the check stubs for Charlie’s Ranch Meat Market in an effort to locate a stub indicating a check was issued to TBSC on or about November 20 or 21, 1963 with negative results.”

Fine. Well and good.

How far back did “on or about” reach? November 19th ? Earlier still?

On what date HAD the prior cheque to TBSC been written, and cashed?

We know there was one. They said it was received monthly.

If there was a regular monthly bill payable to TBSC, on what date did they receive their regular monthly payment from Charlie’s?

How close to “on or about November 20 or 21?” There are FBI synopses of bank account(s) information, but redactions make it uncertain whether they directly pertain to this. If anyone can clarify this, I’d be beholden. Was there a smaller payment made at any point during the pertinent period that was NOT the monthly payment?

It goes without saying that there is a difference between “AYRES review[ing] the check stubs” and FBI doing the same. If a warrant was required to obtain such access, I’m sure it would have been granted in light of its possible pertinence to a presidential assassination. Instead, it was deemed sufficient to take the word of men whose only job description was “employee.”

Where a job description has pertinence to what is being reported, it is almost invariably cited within an FBI report, be it bookkeeper, accountant or mechanic.

What special inside knowledge, other than purported access to cheque stubs, can we infer was possessed by Ayres in his capacity as “employee?” Why rely for information upon a merely generic “employee,” rather than an officer, director or manager of the company?

More to the point, is there any indication that the duties regularly performed by either Charlie’s employee would lead them into contact with someone like Yates, arriving to pick up a cheque? Would they have known or recognized Yates to see him? Perhaps not, given that the question was thought unnecessary to ask, so long as FBI could be told by somebody - anybody - that there was no cheque for Yates to pick up.

Some highly relevant questions might have been posed to Yates by FBI during a second polygraph, including some about the purported cheque. However, after making the pro forma initial effort to polygraph Yates - which was ruled inconclusive - there were no further attempts to do the same. Why? Is conducting a second polygraph that leads to conclusive results not the next logical step?

Lee has repeatedly asked how a hypothetical CIA operation designed to pre-implicate Oswald prior to the assassination would benefit from the pre-implication of Ruby as a player in a plot as well. For if the Yates episode was genuine, Ruby was implicated directly in subsequent events by the HH mentioning the Carousel Club, irrespective of whether Ruby’s name came up in the conversation.

While I’m ambivalent, to play Devil’s Advocate on a point about the plot, I would point out that we cannot assume what did happen is what conspirators intended to have happen. To suggest otherwise is to assume that all went according to their plot and no loose ends were left behind. Nothing is, in my experience, quite so perfect.

The introduction of Ruby as an Oswald associate before the assassination spells conspiracy. A death sentence for Ruby, if evidence for same is invoked.

It is entirely possible the conspirators either didn’t care whether or not Kennedy was thought to have died by a conspiracy, just so long as he died; or perhaps would have preferred to leave evidence of a large international conspiracy to precipitate a retaliatory response. (The initial charge against Oswald was for his role as part of an “international Communist conspiracy.”)

If leverage had been required to make certain Ruby played his role, particularly one previously unknown to him, a pre-manufactured case for Ruby’s complicity in the Kennedy murder would certainly fill the bill. And such insurance may have been necessary, since we know Ruby was a reluctant assassin: he would forego shooting at Oswald despite being armed and within distance to fire at Oswald at least once on that weekend.

If Yates’ hadn’t been debunked and committed in a mental institution, imagine what his testimony would have raised at the Jack Ruby murder trial. It wouldn’t matter what the Warren Commission much later decided behind closed doors, because conspiracy would have been alleged against Ruby openly in court well beforehand.

I don’t posit this surely is what happened, but it’s one possibility, among others, of the kind of benefit for which you were asking. If we think that Ruby’s role was forced upon him by the plot’s masterminds, they clearly thought him as expendable as Oswald. It’s entirely possible they hoped Ruby would himself be shot on the spot by DPD after killing Oswald.

Tidy, that.

Keep doing your thing, Lee. There is something here, exact nature yet to be determined.


Robert Charles-Dunne

Posts : 107
Join date : 2011-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 4:49 pm

If where we are heading is true, Robert, then Yates was a very important witness. I've just woken up after having the first full night's sleep in about 3 months and will reply to many of your points somewhere else on the forum later today.

Out of the storm comes calm...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by greg parker on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 8:48 pm

Lee David Farley wrote:Here's a quote from the dick-head that is known as Albert Doyle. Reading through this steaming pile of shit I suddenly began to realise why Charles Drago suspected that this idiot was Jim Fetzer in disguise:

"Farley is trying to push the Crafard theory. I have to admit he makes some good points but only does so by ignoring the conflicting evidence.

Crafard had no front teeth. If Yates had the interchange with the hitch-hiker he claimed then I don't think he would have missed noticing Crafard's lack of front teeth. I assume Yates was shown Oswald's picture enough that he saw Oswald had a nice intact set of front teeth. Also, I assume FBI grilled Yates enough to ask him if the hitch-hiker had any identifying features. Lack of front teeth would be a pretty good identifying feature.

A more truthful analysis of Yates' claim would show that the hitch-hiker refused to stop talking about shooting Kennedy from a high building. Farley is trying to minimize the full significance of the exact rendering of Yates' experience in order to push the Crafard theory, however he doesn't quite give adequate recognition to the full facts and what they signify. If you pay attention Farley is saying Yates embellished the Ruby part but then adds that Crafard would be likely to mention Ruby out of pride.

What Farley also conspicuously excludes is the fact we have known Oswald impersonation events in Dallas that were very definitely not Crafard. So who were they? Once you establish this you have to ask where the impostors stop and where the Crafard misidentifications start? Not all witnessings in Dallas were Crafard. So it has to be considered that this hitch-hiker was one of the non-Crafard impostors. And since we know that this was a coup therefore saying it was a CIA double should not be mocked so quickly.

In his attempt to force his Crafard theory over the more analyzed facts Farley forgets that a woman applying for a job at the Carousel saw an Oswald figure come in the back door and Ruby refer to him as "Ozzy". Farley is deluding himself that the entire Ruby/Cuban exile/CIA underground both Ruby and Oswald were connected to suddenly disappears along with the obvious chance that it was Oswald or a CIA double the job applicant witnessed.

Farley's confusion claim is very weak because any look at the conspiracy will show they already created conflicts with the auto-dealer Oswald, along with the rifle range Oswald, the Ryder and Whitworth Oswald, along with many other examples - including the Bernard Haire Oswald.

This all comes down to the polygraph results Farley is ignoring. What part of the FBI agent telling Dorothy Yates Ralph passed the test does Farley not understand? I assume the test included questions about the package, Ruby, destinations, and conversation. Once you accept this you then have to ask, even if it was Crafard, why did he show a photo of Oswald in the classic backyard pose and why did he insist on talking about shooting Kennedy? These things more than show there was much more to this event than Yates casually picking-up Crafard. The fact the polygraph validated Yates' version shows that there are serious questions about the hitch-hiker Farley's inadequate version hasn't answered that anyone pretending to seek the truth about Yates' could not avoid.

Funny how the waitress at Dobbs missed the fact that the Oswald double she witnessed had no front teeth. Hmm.

Farley makes a huge gaffe in not realizing a basic thing. Even if it was Crafard why didn't he tell the Commission this? Could it be perhaps because he was sent on a mission by Ruby to set-up Oswald and deliver a rifle to the Depository?"

END OF QUOTE

Is this toss-pot so wrapped up inside his own arsehole that he can't answer his own fucking questions? Is it not possible to untangle the bias that his own opinions are caught up in to, just for one fucking second, think about how much of a dumbass he actually is?

Sorry for the language, boys, but this guy is an utter fucking clown.

The question of the teeth. Does this dumb-fuck actually think that Larry Crafard walked around all day looking like Mr. Fucking-Ed? Jim Carey in The Mask? My own father doesn't have his upper front four teeth. Knocked out playing Rugby. Not totally noticeable until, wait for it, he smiles at you or laughs while he's looking directly at you. On other occasions he'll smile and laugh and you can't tell he's got no front teeth because, wait for it, he's put his fucking dentures in.

Call me a tit, but they did have dentures in 1963 didn't they? Granted we don't know for a fact that he had dentures made, but we don't know for a fac that he didn't either.

The simple fact of the very simple matter is this, Crafard was confused for Oswald. NUMEROUS TIMES. FRONT TEETH MISSING OR NO FRONT TEETH MISSING. HE WAS CONFUSED FOR HIM. Is Albert Knob-Head Doyle going to refute the Robert Patterson sighting or does he instead think that stating his own opinion that people would have noticed the missing teeth is a valid form of evidence? Dumb-ass.

And lastly on the Yates issue. Was Ralph Yates French-kissing Crafard or driving a fucking car?

Next the fucking woman applying for a job at the Carousel being told Crafard was "Ozzy." Great. Maybe "Ozzy" slept in the same dingy fucking room as Crafard next to big Jack's office? In a drawer of a filing cabinet. Ruby sure liked keeping a lid on his CIA conspiracy didn't he? Was this Ruby setting HIMSELF up as the alternative patsy?

As I said to Richard, there's no end to Albert Doyle. He's a pest. He's repeating the same fucking things that he was saying a good few weeks ago. I've moved on so much, and he's still going on about Dorothy Yates saying the FBI told her that Yates passed the polygraph.

So fucking what? What the fuck does that prove?

Rant over.

BTW, Greg, here's what the shithead has to say about you:

"Greg Parker is just a useless sophist who is arrogant enough to think his bombastic doubt is a viable form of argument. He pretends that doubt has grabbed the center and is the most viable approach to the matter. But anyone with any basic common sense can see they haven't answered how toothless Crafard could be mistaken for Oswald"

Please feel free to edit this post, Greg...

...and add in any further Bertie Doyle insults you feel are necessary. Shocked

A sophist historically, is someone who asks for money in return for (often skewed) lectures on a given topic. I've never spoken publicly on the assassination. Sounds more like Fetzer.

And the author sounds like a Fetzer wannabe.

I guess every man has his dream...

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

greg parker
Admin

Posts : 3453
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 58
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Sun 14 Apr 2013, 10:45 pm

Curtis Laverne Craford died on April 19, 2011 in Lafayette, Oregon.

He was 70 years old.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Mon 15 Apr 2013, 8:12 am

Wow... kinda sorry to hear that. He took a lot of dark secrets to his grave, in my estimation. I see that Lafayette is just a few miles southwest of Portland, Oregon. So Craford lived out his life in relative obscurity, fairly near a big city's outskirts.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Mon 03 Jun 2013, 4:03 am

Who is that man standing behind JFK in the photo on page 12 of the Baylor file linked to below?

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/13171/rec/1

I am not a supporter of the Harvey and Lee theory, and I don’t know if that man is Oswald, but it sure as heck does look like him from the side.


Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Tue 04 Jun 2013, 11:01 pm

Airtel from SAC San Antonio to Hoover, concerning the aformentioned Oswald lookalike:

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/13738/rec/11


Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Wed 05 Jun 2013, 7:09 am

There's a more uncanny profile, as far as resemblance, apparently taken during Bay of Pigs training in Nicaragua. Seamus Coogan presented it at JFK Lancer a few years ago and my guess is that it's a certified LHO imposter. Meaning someone who was actively engaged in impersonating him. Since I'm such a klutz at computer links, you'll have to use the Lancer search engine to find Seamus' topic "Could this be Oswald or an imposter or nothing" and click on Attachment #1 in his introductory post.

Another imposter photo I like comes straight from the Armstrong Exhibit in the Warren Volumes. That photo is a bit dark, but the doppelganger is seen sitting in the Carousel Club in http://i35.tinypic.com/view.php?pic=rjfmsi&s=4

I also believe this is a certified imposter. It may well be the same guy as in the Nicaragua photo.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Wed 05 Jun 2013, 7:21 am

Nice to see you back here, Richard. Thanks for the info. I saw that carousel "Oswald" Photo on Gil Jesus' website. My guess is that it's the man whom Wilbyrn Litchfield thought was Oswald.

Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1785
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 28
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 01 May 2014, 3:30 am

I figured I'd resurrect this thread given that Richard recently tried using my Ralph Yates research and my explosive reaction to Albert 'the gonad' Doyle against me in a couple of his recent posts.

Have a read through and please visit the accompanying EF thread where it all started to see what people like Greg, Hasan and other honest people are faced with whilst trying to dig beneath the surface of the current records and the myths that exist on both sides of this dysfunctional community.

The reason this is quite topical for me is because Doyle, who is an utter prick of the highest order, has raised the story of Ralph Yates more than once over at Deep Arseholes Forum more than likely in an effort to goad me over recent weeks.

The type of argument he produces invariably look like his most recent one:

"FBI killed Yates because they were desperate to hide something."

I mean, what else can you respond to this with other than -- go fuck yourself, Doyle?

The other side doesn't need John McAdams with this clown frequenting the internet.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 01 May 2014, 4:26 am

Lee, the reason I brought up Yates in a taunting fashion recently was that Greg had asked whether I was going to bring Lee Oswald into the lunchroom discussion. So I thought it fair, since you were so smarmy with me in your introductory post to me, that I needle you with something I know is dear to your heart. I told Greg that Lee was making out with Geneva Hine in Cason's office.

I don't see why my approval is sought for this Yates hypothesis of yours. The reasons are detailed in our posts on page 9 of this thread. For a quick once-over, I didn't get any answer as to why the hitch-hiker would skip 2 nearby exits near Ruby's apartment in favor of the 3rd; and SA Carter's wretched 6-line prose doesn't hit me as though he's talking plain English. So I can't sign on to the Crafard-as-hitchhiker hypothesis. Essentially, what I do sign on to is a non-Crafard doppelganger as hitch-hiker.

I don't know why I get lumped into the H & L crew/cult/whatever when I raise the issue. Greg & I had some debates a couple years ago about the Jiffy Store and Althea Frair aspects of the theory and neither of us received satisfactory replies from the adversarial position. Those I'm sure are still in the H & L section of this website. I never look at it 'cause I'm not that seriously interested. Still a TSBD man. I reiterated my position on H & L a few weeks ago in some thread I can't recall. I simply don't have time to look into every fine nuance of it.

Just for fun's sake, I have the opinion on the school records that they are dual, and have the opinion that I may be mistaken. On the military records, I'm sure they are dual. The Jiffy Store, Althea Frair Texas driver's license, TF White, and Robert Vinson story all look to me like "Lee" Oswald. He can't be ruled out for the Texas Theater imposter. Nor from the Tippit murder, but that looks to me more like a DPD takeout of a dumbo officer.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 01 May 2014, 5:38 am

Nor do I have the time to look into this anymore, Richard.

I neither want to resurrect or continue the recent infighting.  I would simply like some of our new members to give this issue some thought because I do actually believe the Yates sighting of an "Oswald" is important but certainly not the way Armstrong, and Douglass for that matter, portray it.

My main point resurrecting the thread is to prove that the lunatics don't always belong to the Oswald-did-it-alone crew.

Doyle would test the patience of a saint.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 01 May 2014, 6:40 am

A complete and utter ******* from your hometown once said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ. People in Texas burned Beatles records as a result. And when asked to explain himself, he said he never said they were better than Christ. The problem was that they had become more popular.

Similarly, when I say Walt Brown doesn't have a science degree, no way I intend that as an insult or that I'm better than him. It gets construed as arrogance I think because I have a short fuse for people who don't engage their brain before they post. Which was my major complaint with Walt. I don't think I could find a single further complaint in the whole body of his work.


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Guest on Thu 01 May 2014, 6:56 am

You seem to have used seven * asterisks in your post. 

Yet the word G-E-N-I-U-S has only six letters.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Rushoman to Judgement

Post by Sponsored content Today at 9:43 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum