When Ralph Yates returned to his workplace at the Texas Butcher Supply Company, he told his co-worker, Dempsey Jones, about his strange conversation with the man he picked up in Oak Cliff and dropped off at Elm and Houston who was carrying the package. Dempsey Jones thereby became a supporting witness to Yates's account.
He confirmed in an FBI interview that it was before President Kennedy was assassinated that Yates described picking up the hitchhiker, "who discussed the fact with him that one could be in a building and shoot the President as he, the President, passed by."
The polygraph request of Yates by FBI executive level was in reaction to Yates's employer providing record indicating a different employee made the repair call Yates claimed he made, positioning Yates geographically, in the course of his work day, to be believably a driver who picked up a hijacker carrying what the hitchhiker described to Yates as "window shades".
No one "leaked" a 27 inch length description, and Yates is reported to have described a package length of at least four feet, aka 48".
November 25, 1963 - FIND OSWALD PALM PRINTS ON ...
https://chicagotribune.newspapers.com/search/#query=window+shades&ymd=1963-11-25
Wife Adds Evidence. Oswald told this neighbor the package contained "window shades." His wife, Marina, later told police Oswald had the rifle at the house on ..
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57739&search=yates_and+polygraph#relPageId=93&tab=page
Right 
From that report... Ideal but not usual.
I would refer to the Jeffery Epstein matter [which was summarily dismissed]
A usual patronizing statement.
Unsupported --regarding the Yates story [yes actually moot now]
What other kind of support would be required?
Right before I finished typing this, the name Dempsey Jones is mentioned in the above post.
Jerry, I have come to expect responses such as yours, in reaction to my frequent presentation of verifiable fact that collides with believe systems. Presenting unwelcome, unappreciated
verifiable facts to readers who claim to be truth seekers but are actually only seeking confirmation of their biases has cost me much more than I can describe here, now. I guess I continue to do it because a very few, like Mark O'Blazney, thank me, and because I have an inspiration to do it that I have not been able to shut off. "Quickly Wipe that Weapon," Jerry! IOW, just tune out what I bring to these threads.
Ask yourself if you response to my post shares the "tone" of ARRB's Douglas Horne, reacting to facts "unkind" to his ridiculous book review, which he could have revised or deleted,
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R8NNVIZE9ITM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1510708928 in reaction to presentation of newer facts.:
Douglas Horne:http://jfkforum.com/images/JanneyHorneReacts.jpg
....Your citations seem to me like the detailed biographical information that would be maintained by the same "outfit"....
IOW, Jerry, you only directed a flesh wound at me in response to the facts I shared with you that you also had the option of reacting to with a more appreciative or a neutral tone. Mr. Horne reacted to my message by firing a bazooka round, given the weight of the reputation he had built for himself. Consider also that Mark O'Blazney was Leo Damore's researcher and Damore's and Mark's efforts were foundational for Peter Janney's claims in the initial, 2012 edition of "Mary's Mosaic". There are 493 Amazon reviews of the book. Five star reviews have continued to pour in, ignoring the weight of the facts I presented in August, 2012...that Janney's "not to be found since 1965" (allegedly after his Crump murder trial testimony) "CIA wet work" assassin of Mary Meyer, had been living openly, pursuing a PhD in Berkeley, CA, and afterward, a long teaching career at UC, Hayward, CA.
Jerry, what you describe as my patronizing is possibly confused with sarcasm / amusement in reaction to cult level ignorance fueled narrow vision and arrogance. Consider also that Mr. Simkin, Ed Forum founder, overrode the disciplinary steps he himself had instituted to provide a wall of integrity between himself and moderating decisions when he summarily "busted me" from Ed Forum moderator to "guest" with no posting privileges, remarking that he had failed to "protect" his friend, author Peter Janney, from the impact to his new book my facts caused, (LOL) . IOW, it is easy for you to tell me I am patronizing. Patronizing, compared to what?
Yates's mother was one month pregnant with Yates when her toddler suddenly died. The only reason I looked at this witness's mother was because of his plaintive poem describing her, more than thirty years later. A double "whammy" was that his mother abandoned Ralph Yates. If you have not, consider what Yates's own relatives said about him, combined with the history of mental illness in his family. If I seem patronizing, possibly it is in reaction to the rarity of ANY presentation of original research or INTEREST in such, because the vast majority exhibiting interest in the Kennedy Assassination are more committed to defending an assumption Oswald was "framed" than they are in exploring the question of "how do I know what I know." via pursuit of primary sources, such as the Willcuts Report (
http://jamesforrestal.ariwatch.com/WillcuttsReport.htm ) compared to the "sources" DCdave supports his Ralph Yates presentation with.
https://www.daytondailynews.com/lifestyles/health/death-loved-one-during-pregnancy-may-affect-child-mental-health-study-says/T2Myg2dVJ4BGR6gWs5CrgL/
HEALTH April 08, 2018
By Najja Parker, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Grieving the death of a loved one can affect an entire family, including babies. In fact, losing a relative during pregnancy may affect the mental health of a child later in life, according to a new report.
......
To do so, they examined Swedish infants born between 1973 and 2011 whose mother lost a close relative, such as a sibling, parent, maternal grandparent, the child’s father or her own older child, during her pregnancy.>> Breast cancer patients may help boost survival chances by building muscle, study says They followed those children through adulthood, comparing their health outcomes to kids whose maternal relatives died in the year after their birth. They gathered the data from their medical records and Sweden’s novel prescription drug registry, which contains all prescription drug purchases.Lastly, they considered the impact the death may have had on the fetus, including fetal exposure to maternal stress from bereavement and even changes to family resources or household composition.>> On AJC.com: Is light drinking while pregnant really dangerous?
After analyzing their results, they found that “that prenatal exposure to the death of a maternal relative increases take-up of ADHD medications during childhood and anti-anxiety and depression medications in adulthood,” the researchers wrote in a statement.Furthermore, they discovered the death of a relative up to three generations apart during pregnancy can also create consequences. ...
And Jerry, and Joe.....
Tom Scully 08-09-2015, 11:31 PM#120
.....
I tnink I'm finally getting the hang of this. Whatever your interpretation of and weighting of this information is, IS WHAT IT IS. If you decide an FBI agent has used wording that fits your beliefs, it
is rock solid, take it to the bank evidence. If the wording in an FBI report seems to undermine your beliefs, you point out it is sourced from the corrupt, malevolent FBI. A newspaper report is worded in
a way you object to, and.....it was planted by the CIA. Heads you win, tails I lose! This is fun......for you......
Rock solid, a game changer weight= a gazillion lbs.: (It is an inaccurate recollection, Yates was still making a pest and a spectacle of himself ten days later, but that must be beside the point?)
(From James Douglass's book...)
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html
Yates had still not been discredited. But there was more to come.
During his final, January 4 trip to the FBI office, Ralph Yates was accompanied by his wife, Dorothy. He had asked her to come with him. In an interview forty-two years later, she told me what happened next to her husband. After he completed his (inconclusive) lie-detector test, she said, the FBI told him he needed to go immediately to Woodlawn Hospital, the Dallas hospital for the mentally ill. He drove there with Dorothy. He was admitted that evening as a psychiatric patient. From that point on, he spent the remaining eleven years of his life as a patient in and out of mental health hospitals.[775]
Meaningless, weight= ZERO:
His uncle, J. O. Smith, who went with him on his first trip to the FBI office, said of his nephew’s story, “I really thought that was all just imagination.”[784]
It is an FBI report, it is not signed by Yates, but the wording in it is unique, and it fits the belief system. (J.O. Smith, isn't that the uncle quoted in 2006?)
Rock solid, a game changer weight= a gazillion lbs.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&search=yates_and+shades#relPageId=422&tab=page
This is a page of an FBI report. It is counter to certain belief systems. FBI is corrupt, untrustworthy, malevolent. Scully, why do you bother to post FBI reports? Are you an FBI defender?
Meaningless, weight= ZERO:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406&relPageId=425&search=yates_and%20shades
Is it penetrating my thick skull? Scully, if we find it disagreeable, you are suspect for even posting it, don't you know the CIA and FBI planted fake reports and newspaper articles and discredited witnesses they happened to just not kill, outright?
If we find it agreeable, as the unique "curtain rod" wording in FBI agent Ben S. Harrison's 27 November reporting of his 26 November Yates interview, it is heartily received, heavily weighted, proclaimed as unimpeachable.
Pardon me, but there are no solid conclusions to be drawn in this instance because all Ralph Yates quotes are sourced from FBI reports and the 42 year old recollections of Yates's widow and uncle conflict with each other. The resolute postures of those who post in this thread and maintain that they know what is definitive and what is not, are unreasonable.
