Rushoman to Judgement

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?

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.

If Yates just picked up an ordinary hitch-hiker why did he rush-in to tell Jones?

Though let me say that I don't believe that Oswald was ever outside Brewer's store looking "funny/scared".

greg parker wrote:

"While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...

Yates described his hiker as

5' 9"
slender
dark eyebrows and hair

FBI description of Crafard

Age. 22
Height. 5'8"
Weight. 150 lbs
Hair. Brown
Eyes. Brown
Complexion. Med
1/2" scar center of upper lip

Photo of Crafard

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0100a.htm

I note RC-D does not think Crafard's hair and eyebrows could be described as "dark". Maybe it's just me, but I don't think "dark" is exactly way off the mark.

Crafard was mistaken for Oswald at an electronic store. That's now beyond dispute.

Addionally, I think he was mistaken for Oswald in the Carousel club, at sex parties Ruby held or attended, and possibly at Dobb's House just before Yates drove onto the scene in his trusty pickup.

greg parker wrote:Lee,

Here's what I get, in part,

"I thought you could tell it by looking at my face and the way I touched you & talked to you. I guess that for some stupid reason I thought you may have felt the same way."

The big question is - is it addressed to "Gail" or "Gale" because the former would more than likely denote "female" and the latter, a "male" - as in the actor Gale Gordon.

Greg,

Any idea what was involved in homosexual aversion therapy in the 1960's? Ralph was possibly seeing a psychiatrist and was on medication prior to his FBI visit. Do you think it likely that he was part of an aversion programme with Dr. Weaver? i mean, homosexuality in many circles was seen as a mental illness wasn't it?

He turns up to his first FBI interview with his uncle and not his wife. He specifically asks that he not receive any media attention. He cannot prove why he was in Oak Cliff. He's picking up strange men and this one (possibly) just happens to hang around with Big Butch Pinky Ruby.

Would his wife finding out, if he was partaking in homosexual activities, not send him a bit doo-lally? Five kids?

P.S. I thought the eyebrows quote from RCD was a bit left-field. Does the case hinge on dark versus brown eyebrows?

Mr. HUBERT. How long did you serve altogether?
Mr. CRAFARD. Thirteen months.
Mr. HUBERT. Is that the usual tour?
Mr. CRAFARD. No, sir. The usual tour is 3 to 4 years.
Mr. HUBERT. Well now, what caused you to get out sooner?
Mr. CRAFARD. As far as I understand it is the next thing to a medical discharge.
Mr. HUBERT. What was it based upon, do you know?
Mr. CRAFARD. General, under honorable conditions.

4. Claim to be gay or bisexual. Under the "don't ask, don't tell" law, expressing attraction to the same sex or engaging in "homosexual acts" is grounds for discharge. Sounds much better than shooting yourself in the foot for a medical discharge, doesn't it? There are two problems, however. First of all, if your commander doesn't believe you, you won't get the discharge. Secondly, you will get a "General Discharge" rather than the "Honorable Discharge" given to most soldiers, which is somewhat of a blot on your record.
http://www.ehow.com/how_4840471_out-military-early.html

Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

greg parker wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

1975... 2 years after homosexuality was taken out of the textbooks as a psychiatric problem.

I actually remember Nixon's push to eradicate violence the West way... it was a huge story in the day...

Lee David Farley wrote:

greg parker wrote:

Lee David Farley wrote:http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PJfUHb7mB9UC&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=jolly+west+homosexual+aversion&source=bl&ots=XUcppGwe3U&sig=yU-pIPGruZAr4HntEH7WMysm_lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GP1bUdypD4Oh0QXZqYCoDQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jolly%20west%20homosexual%20aversion&f=false

1975... 2 years after homosexuality was taken out of the textbooks as a psychiatric problem.

I actually remember Nixon's push to eradicate violence the West way... it was a huge story in the day...

If Jolly was still up to after it was taken off the list then one can only imagine what he was up to when it was on it.

The behaviorist school in psychology also attempted to convert gay people into heterosexuals. Some of their treatments were caustic. Three forms of aversion therapy were used. The first was electrical aversion therapy, in which an electric shock was administered to the patient if he responded erotically to a picture of a new man. Another technique was called covert sensitization, in which disgust and images of vomit were thought to cure homosexual desire. The third type of aversion therapy used the drug apomorphine, which induces nausea in the patient. Gay liberationists viewed these aversive procedures as punishment, not treatment.

Davison, who later rejected his early work, called his system "Playboy therapy," in which a gay man masturbated to pictures of naked women. A good review of the aversion therapy literature is provided by Bancroft, who himself contributed significantly to the aversion therapy literature. Masters and Johnson also attempted to change the sexual orientation of gay people.

Perhaps the most bizarre attempt to reorient the sexual orientation of a gay man was performed by Heath at Tulane University in 1972. Heath implanted electrodes into the brain of a gay man. The patient was then placed in a room with a woman prostitute, who was hired to seduce him. As the same time, Heath stimulated the pleasure centers in the brain of the man. This attempt was not a success.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Crafard being gay is entirely conceivable, for reasons stated. It would also help explain why Ruby so instantly placed him in a position of great trust.

"He [Ruby] liked to surround himself with clean cut, well-dressed 'Hollywood"-type men because it made him feel important."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57076&relPageId=88

But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

I'm pretty sure Crafard's lesbian wife had a kid with him, and I've heard of fathers waiting for their kids to grow up and then having a sex change. As you say, anything is possible. Maybe he just "turned" or maybe he had been trying extra hard to live in denial. Five kids. Who's gonna question his manliness?

As for the description of hair and eyebrows provided by Yates, “dark” is a relative term and it would have been nice had authorities insisted on an actual colour, such as black or brown or chestnut, or what have you. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I think of blonde, brunette and black, I think light, medium and dark.

Though I cannot at present recall where, I long ago saw a photo of Crafard in which he looked more fair than he is usually depicted in photos, and thought the difference was down to using some kind of pomade like Brylcreem. Pre-Beatles, slicked hair was very much the fashion in North America, and the requisite liberal use of pomade gave me - for example - hair several shades darker than what the Good Lord provided me.

Thanks for clarifying your definitions. Maybe he wore pomade that day?

Crafard-as-hitchhiker would explain much, but I’m not sure how one would be able to corroborate it.

Well, the doppleganger theory has been getting along just fine without corroboration. Just lots of picking and choosing and misrepresentation of evidence.

And I do think that had it been him, he would have prevailed upon Yates to drive him to the club instead of Houston and Elm.

I tried to cover this earlier:
----------------------------------

While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...
-----------------------------------------------------
Unless, or course, that was his intended destination because he was dropping something off for Warren Caster, who apparently needed new curtain rods. ;-)

Richard Gilbride wrote:Yates polygraph fact: Dorothy Yates told James Douglass in 2006 that the FBI in January 1964 told her that her husband was telling the truth at his polygraph test.

Richard, Can you explain why they would say that to her while writing something entirely different in the report?

I really can't express the reasons why it was reported as inconclusive better than Jim DiEugenio and Albert Doyle have at Deep Politics, so I will repost excerpts from their posts #23 and #24:

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...

Doyle: ...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.

Doyle knew shit all about this at the start. He's slooowly catching on. Now he only has to cotton on to control questions and the reason for them, and what it means if you are not giving out significant readings on either set of questions.

So FBI had a problem where it needed to construct semantics that would satisfy their need to obey national security orders while not directly lying about the true test results. The simple answer was to use the wording "Yates showed no emotional response to the questions." In other words Yates showed no wiggles or stress reactions to the questions. His chart flowed smoothly without any observable reaction. In a very perverted interpretation of the results the FBI said the results were "inconclusive."

And your proof is.... you don't like it.... so it must mean the FBI was lying. How easy is that?

*******

Since it was reported that Yates responded to neither control questions nor relevant questions, i.e. since he supposedly flat-lined to both types of questions, I have to assume that the examiner didn't ask any (not one) control question that would trigger a deceptive response, in order to set a benchmark for comparison, for detecting a lie when the pertinent questions were asked.

That's a pretty suspect test, and it seems that before they commenced it they wanted a null result.

Please show me something from a professional journal which supports your claim that this test was "suspect".

Anyone can make claims from ignorance, Richard. Demonstrate it's not the case here.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:
But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

greg parker wrote:

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Crafard being gay is entirely conceivable, for reasons stated. It would also help explain why Ruby so instantly placed him in a position of great trust.

"He [Ruby] liked to surround himself with clean cut, well-dressed 'Hollywood"-type men because it made him feel important."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=57076&relPageId=88

But Ralph Yates? While not impossible, in my experience on this planet, gay men don’t usually have five children. Not because they’re incapable of the contribution required, but because they don’t relish physical intimacy with women sufficiently to impregnate a woman five times. Yet Ralph seems to have managed five kids by a very early age, indeed. But anything’s possible, one supposes.

I'm pretty sure Crafard's lesbian wife had a kid with him, and I've heard of fathers waiting for their kids to grow up and then having a sex change. As you say, anything is possible. Maybe he just "turned" or maybe he had been trying extra hard to live in denial. Five kids. Who's gonna question his manliness?

As for the description of hair and eyebrows provided by Yates, “dark” is a relative term and it would have been nice had authorities insisted on an actual colour, such as black or brown or chestnut, or what have you. Perhaps it’s just me, but when I think of blonde, brunette and black, I think light, medium and dark.

Though I cannot at present recall where, I long ago saw a photo of Crafard in which he looked more fair than he is usually depicted in photos, and thought the difference was down to using some kind of pomade like Brylcreem. Pre-Beatles, slicked hair was very much the fashion in North America, and the requisite liberal use of pomade gave me - for example - hair several shades darker than what the Good Lord provided me.

Thanks for clarifying your definitions. Maybe he wore pomade that day?

Crafard-as-hitchhiker would explain much, but I’m not sure how one would be able to corroborate it.

Well, the doppleganger theory has been getting along just fine without corroboration. Just lots of picking and choosing and misrepresentation of evidence.

And I do think that had it been him, he would have prevailed upon Yates to drive him to the club instead of Houston and Elm.

I tried to cover this earlier:
----------------------------------

While in Harrison on this occasion, Crafard said he had been employed by Jack Ruby at the Carousel Club in Dallas. In addition to being a book-keeper and janitor for Ruby, he 'worked the lights' during the floor show and '...got tired of watching naked women.' Crafard claimed that he served as Jack Ruby's 'personal secretary;' he had coffee with Ruby in the latter's office, and he and Ruby occasionally sat at the end of the bar near the rear door of the Carousel Club and talked. According to Mrs Cascaddan, these statements by Crafard were apparently designed to demonstrate was not only an employee, but also a 'buddy' of Ruby. Too, Crafard gave the impression that his employment by Ruby was a 'big deal' and it had been an honor to work for him." https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11475&relPageId=4

Crafard's exuberance about having worked for Ruby may be partly explained by Ruby's sudden infamy. But I don't think it solely explains it. Ruby knew people. Ruby dropped names. Ruby talked big. And he was kind of in show biz. Crafard had run concession stands at fairs and done a few other drab jobs. He had been given an early general discharge from the army. Ruby gave him "important" jobs. Important sounding titles. It's no wonder Crafard looked up to him.

Now go back to Ralph's hitch-hiker. He allegedly asked Ralph if he knew Ruby or had heard of the Carousel. Those pushing the doppleganger theory make all sorts of nonsense out of that.

But if this was Crafard (as I think is more than possible), it makes sense that he was asking about Ruby. If Yates had heard of this important man, Crafard could brag that he worked for him, or was an associate, and that was where he was headed: to the Carousel. It would have been a big boost to his self-esteem.

When the answer to both was negative, the subject was probably dropped and there would be no point to asking to be taken those 6 or so extra blocks...
-----------------------------------------------------
Unless, or course, that was his intended destination because he was dropping something off for Warren Caster, who apparently needed new curtain rods. ;-)

On Yates and his request for anonymity:

Consider that his request had nothing to do with fear of reprisals from conspirators. If he was in Oak Cliff "cruising" for men, I think that would be sufficient reason to want to keep a low profile. It would also account for no one supporting him having a work-related reason to be there and why he was trawling around looking for a time he was legitimately there so he could say "well it must have been that day."

There is no doubt in my mind that Larry was not only gay but that he was prostituting himself. That Californian jacket was almost a "trade" uniform (yes, the jacket also underwent scrutiny - not by me - but in a thorough, professional manner by someone trusted, even to the extent of talking to clothing historians, among others. For these reasons, I believe it was Crafard and not Oswald seen by witnesses at Ruby's swinging sex parties.

Since it was brought up at the other forum regarding "typical" doppleganger sightings... are there any other examples where the "double" not only forgets to say his name is "Oswald", but DOES mention Ruby and the Carousel?

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Lads:

A couple of points:

Ralph Yates being gay and cruising during work time is a tenable hypothesis, but without some additional ammunition for it, remains supposition.

One also notes that if Yates had no business being in Oak Cliff, asking his boss to help determine which day he was there is self-defeating and self-destroying. Likewise, if he had no business in Oak Cliff and was there cruising for trade, it only underscores the importance of NOT coming forward to authorities at all.

“What were you doing in Oak Cliff?”

“Ummmmmmmm........”

Regarding gay men having kids; we’ve all encountered instances where women were married to be beards, and children were conceived. Sometimes the gay husband came out after the kids were grown and sometimes they were outed only after death. And sometimes they never came out at all, which makes it rather difficult to conclude that they’re gay in the absence of some other compelling evidence, be it love letters (Crafard?) or the assertions of credible fellow gay men with whom they had a tryst.

Yates would obviously fall into the latter category, meaning that in order to cinch this hypothesis as fact more is required in the way of evidence. I would also question the notion of having five kids to demonstrate masculinity when one or two would do. Particularly as he was not a great bread-winner, and paying the freight for so large a family must have been somewhat difficult on his blue collar salary.

If asked to choose a rationale for so large a family, I would accept Catholicism before gay-denial simply because it requires no additional evidence or moving parts to do so. If he wasn’t Catholic, I can only assume they didn’t know about or couldn’t afford contraceptives.

I must caution, also, to recall that the incorrect assertion that Garrison was going after a cabal of homosexuals was used against him, and helped discredit him in some circles. If this is to be a central plank in the Yates hypothesis, and if you have insufficient evidence for it, you will be mocked by straights and gays alike. Even today, the assertion someone is gay is touchy, and will offend certain parties if there is no smoking gun evidence for it. Tread gingerly, is good advice in this particular instance, I think.

I also want to just add that if we disagree on the Yates case, or to be more accurate, an element of it - Yates being a minor footnote at best, a name known to literally dozens of book readers - it should not be taken personally. Respect for both of you is undiminished, despite, and in some cases because of, the to-and-fro over various arcana.

Happy Birthday, Greg!

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:Lads:

A couple of points:

Ralph Yates being gay and cruising during work time is a tenable hypothesis, but without some additional ammunition for it, remains supposition.

One also notes that if Yates had no business being in Oak Cliff, asking his boss to help determine which day he was there is self-defeating and self-destroying. Likewise, if he had no business in Oak Cliff and was there cruising for trade, it only underscores the importance of NOT coming forward to authorities at all.

“What were you doing in Oak Cliff?”

“Ummmmmmmm........”

Regarding gay men having kids; we’ve all encountered instances where women were married to be beards, and children were conceived. Sometimes the gay husband came out after the kids were grown and sometimes they were outed only after death. And sometimes they never came out at all, which makes it rather difficult to conclude that they’re gay in the absence of some other compelling evidence, be it love letters (Crafard?) or the assertions of credible fellow gay men with whom they had a tryst.

Yates would obviously fall into the latter category, meaning that in order to cinch this hypothesis as fact more is required in the way of evidence. I would also question the notion of having five kids to demonstrate masculinity when one or two would do. Particularly as he was not a great bread-winner, and paying the freight for so large a family must have been somewhat difficult on his blue collar salary.

If asked to choose a rationale for so large a family, I would accept Catholicism before gay-denial simply because it requires no additional evidence or moving parts to do so. If he wasn’t Catholic, I can only assume they didn’t know about or couldn’t afford contraceptives.

I must caution, also, to recall that the incorrect assertion that Garrison was going after a cabal of homosexuals was used against him, and helped discredit him in some circles. If this is to be a central plank in the Yates hypothesis, and if you have insufficient evidence for it, you will be mocked by straights and gays alike. Even today, the assertion someone is gay is touchy, and will offend certain parties if there is no smoking gun evidence for it. Tread gingerly, is good advice in this particular instance, I think.

I also want to just add that if we disagree on the Yates case, or to be more accurate, an element of it - Yates being a minor footnote at best, a name known to literally dozens of book readers - it should not be taken personally. Respect for both of you is undiminished, despite, and in some cases because of, the to-and-fro over various arcana.

Happy Birthday, Greg!

Richard Gilbride wrote:HAPPY BIRTHDAY, Greg!

Hmm. So close to Lee Farley's birthday. Coincidence or Conspiracy?