I wince reading some of the stuff CTs post and likely actually believe. I think some are redeemable if exposed
to verifiable fact. LNs have the claims and conclusions of federal gov and MSM committed to maintaining the status
quo, to satisfy themselves (LNs).
On another JFK forum I monitor, David von Pein is hawking the souvenirs available at his website on one thread
while on another, Larry Hancock asserts twice on the same page that Ralph Yates
passed an FBI administered polygraph test, as if this was a fact. I've looked and this is an assumption so weak based on the available supporting facts, it is certainly misleading and seems contrary to the actual record of Yates's interaction with the FBI.
Can anyone back up Larry's claim Yates passed an FBI administered polygraph with FBI documents or of
a first person
statement of an FBI employee at the time, in a position to possibly know this?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57760&relPageId=6In other words, what are your standards if you are indeed searching for what is closest to the truth and building
rungs of a ladder of assumptions intended to isolate fact?
What is your evidentiary standard signaling you to proceed to forming assumptions leading to conclusions or firm
suspicions?
I hope to use this thread to display the strength or weakness of methods employed by CTs and inform
readers of who earns a reputation of reliable claims vs. who must be meticulously fact checked.I am surprised Larry Hancock in this example has set an evidentiary standard so low, his entire body of work influenced
me to expect more from him than from more flamboyant and embellishing CT authors.
If he has seen this, it certainly does not support what he posted today, twice.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57753&relPageId=3
If he has more solid support, I will learn something to soften my firm conclusion Ralph Yates was very ill
and that his claims about encountering Oswald were desperate cries for medical treatment.
