Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Tim Gratz]

I am glad that Mr. Carroll shared his perspective.

He agrees with Pat Speer that the story of "Pearl's mother" is not believeable.

I would urge any other interested member or viewer to read Chapters 31 and 32 in their entirety and see just how preposterous the story is. If I am reading it right, Ayers does not even know Pearl's last name. By my reading, he never had any contact information about her. She contacted him by illegally reviewing his medical records.

Pat, charitably I think, says perhaps there was someone who Ayers calls "Pearl" who sold Ayers a bill of goods. If so, Ayers' naivete must exceed his intelligence since William and Robert are to date the only members who have read the story (and I question if they have) and give any credence to it.

But perhaps BK is coming around. For he says:

Ayers is in the same category as Hunt, Sturgis, Hemming, Plumley and all those guys who passed through JMWAVE, and you have to take what they all say with more than a grain of salt. And you can't depend on any of them. [by the way, I think it is "Plumlee".]

But notice an anamoly in BK's post. He says that Shackley confirmed everything Ayers wrote. Then he states there is abundant "new information" about JM/WAVE in "The Zenith Secret." Well, obviously Shackley has not confirmed that "new information", so take it from BK, get out your salt shaker when you assess that "new information". And don't use the salt for your margarita; you'll need every last grain of it! (By the way, is BK now vouching for the reliability of the blond ghost?)

Edited November 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Gratz's new on-line dictionary of logic terms:

"Non sequitur": Well since, as Peter points out, BEA hasn't made a cent off this edition and is invovled in a court case with Vox-Pop - who operate out of a coffee house in Brooklyn, and are hooked up with Prof. Fetzer, and he's hold up in a remote cabin and refuses interviews, there goes the assertions that Ayers is "just another attention-seeker trying to make a buck." [bK in Post #248.]

By definition, the founder of any business that goes "belly-up" never intended to make a profit! The logic of that proposition is as shallow as Owens Lake! If Ayers was not out to make a buck on "The Zenith Secret", why didn't he just give his book away on the Internet?

Edited November 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

If Ayers does provide you with a faxed or e-mailed copy of said photo, with the father’s face excised, would you then admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that the excised face could have been anybody’s, but not necessarily that of Pearl’s father?

Well, Robert, the answer ought to be obvious to you. The identity of Pearl’s father (if she indeed HAD a father) cannot go undisclosed especially given the statement of Mrs. Eisenhower that no one meeting the description Ayers gives of “Pearl’s father” ever worked for BG. Don't you get the point of Mr. Carroll that Ayers' story is questionable precisely because he fails to identify the name of the man in the story?

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I believe I have discovered the reason for the gulf that separates my POV from that of our friend from Canada. It simply must be that the jurisprudence in Canada is different than it is in the United States. In the US, a person accused of a crime has the right to confront his or her accuser--a very important safeguard that is built in to the constitution. No one can be convicted on the word of an unidentified

Informant.

Apparently justice in Canada must hearken back to the days of the “star chamber”. At least Robert thinks it morally acceptable for a person to be accused of murder by the word of a third person whose identity is withheld.

Robert gives Ayers the benefit of the doubt. Even though Ayers never claims any verification of Pearl’s story (assuming of course that she exists) other than a yet-to-be published photo of

BG with “Pearl’s father”-- which, of course, has no probative value in determining whether the man in the photo (if such a photo exists) ever worked for BG. Robert simply assumes that Ayers had some basis for believing Pearl’s story which, for reasons Robert never even attempts to suggest, Ayers fails to disclose in his opus. And then he puts the burden on me to contact Ayers to disprove that Ayers possesses this confidential confirmation of a story rather incredible on its face. One would think that if Robert was truly interested in fairness, let alone truth, he would agree that I have raised valid questions and urge BK to contact Ayers and demand an explanation.

Note however that Robert’s view of fairness does differ depending on whether the person under attack is a distinguished former political leader of our democracy or a two-bit communist dictator whose regime is noted for its abuses for civil rights. When I quoted a book by a respected author that Castro had plotted bombings of New York shopping centers, which the author asserted was based on FBI reports, Robert did not extend to that author the same leniency he shows to Brad Ayers.

Robert can employ all of the rhetorical flourishes he wants but he cannot hide the fact that Ayers has accused a distinguished American of murder based solely on the word of a person

whose identity he will not disclose. Yet I suspect Robert would join the historical attack on Joseph McCarthy, for his sin of accusing persons of Communism based on scanty information or the word of questionable accusers.

Well, I do intend to make inquiry of Ayers but upon my terms and timing. But it shall be soon.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote re my questioning of Ayers recitation of Pearl's story:

"f you had knockout-punch evidence of any kind [you would have disclosed it."].

Robert must have missed my post that Ayers has "Pearl's father" shuffling back and forth between BG's DC and AZ offices during the several year period in which BG was no longer a senator and had no office in DC. That statement in itself is sufficient to damn Ayers.

Again, Pat may charitably suggest that perhaps someone conned Ayers with the crazy story. But Ayers did not even go far enough as to check the years when BG was in fact a U.S. Senator--an obvious check to perform, although one might fail to perform that exercise if one realized ab initio that the story was as false as a six dollar bill (inflation, my friends!).

Edited November 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Who said:

Unsubstantiated allegations can always be used to accuse a loyal American of murder but no allegation can ever be made against Fidel Castro absent the most thorough corroboration?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert wrote:

If Ayers does provide you with a faxed or e-mailed copy of said photo, with the father’s face excised, would you then admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that the excised face could have been anybody’s, but not necessarily that of Pearl’s father?

Well, Robert, the answer ought to be obvious to you. The identity of Pearl’s father (if she indeed HAD a father) cannot go undisclosed especially given the statement of Mrs. Eisenhower that no one meeting the description Ayers gives of “Pearl’s father” ever worked for BG. Don't you get the point of Mr. Carroll that Ayers' story is questionable precisely because he fails to identify the name of the man in the story?

Raymond hasn’t read the book, by his own admission. He didn’t find Ayers’ first book worth pursuing his second one, which is his right. Consequently, he only knows what you’ve written here, which is rather ill-informed since you’ve made no effort to determine the facts by contacting Ayers. Next witness please…..

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I believe I have discovered the reason for the gulf that separates my POV from that of our friend from Canada. It simply must be that the jurisprudence in Canada is different than it is in the United States. In the US, a person accused of a crime has the right to confront his or her accuser--a very important safeguard that is built in to the constitution. No one can be convicted on the word of an unidentified

Informant.

No, what separates us is that you are keen to accept whatever you prefer, even in the absence of evidence, and to dismiss what you prefer not to confront, without determining the evidence. Recall that Tim has in the past considered probative an alleged photograph of a purported DGI agent in Dealey Plaza, despite the fact that

nobody

has ever

produced

such a photograph. However, so long as it implicates Fidel Castro, the very assertion that such a photograph exists is compelling evidence. If you wish to check the bona fides of the Pearl story, I can only repeat for the umpteenth time that you should

contact Ayers

, as you’ve promised to do for nigh on a month.

Apparently justice in Canada must hearken back to the days of the “star chamber”. At least Robert thinks it morally acceptable for a person to be accused of murder by the word of a third person whose identity is withheld.

What a laugh riot you are, Tim. In the past, you’ve flung allegations of complicity/responsibility in the assassination toward Lyndon Johnson, the Mob, Fidel Castro, the KGB, even Madame Nhu, or some combination of all of the above, for crying out loud. And, as noted above, you have even attempted to introduce as evidence against Castro the supposition that a photo exists, and claimed it to be probative, without having

seen

the photo, nor even determined that such a photo

exists

. Yet you invoke “star chamber” language? As a legal mind, you are a fine hotel night clerk.

Robert gives Ayers the benefit of the doubt. Even though Ayers never claims any verification of Pearl’s story (assuming of course that she exists) other than a yet-to-be published photo of

BG with “Pearl’s father”-- which, of course, has no probative value in determining whether the man in the photo (if such a photo exists) ever worked for BG. Robert simply assumes that Ayers had some basis for believing Pearl’s story which, for reasons Robert never even attempts to suggest, Ayers fails to disclose in his opus. And then he puts the burden on me to contact Ayers to disprove that Ayers possesses this confidential confirmation of a story rather incredible on its face. One would think that if Robert was truly interested in fairness, let alone truth, he would agree that I have raised valid questions and urge BK to contact Ayers and demand an explanation.

See, here’s how it works, counselor. If

you

make the allegation that Ayers lied, then the onus for providing proof for the assertion rests with

you

, not with Bill Kelly or me or anyone else.

You!

Got it? You cannot shift the burden of proof onto Bill Kelly or me or anyone else by simply wishing really hard and clicking your heels together.

You

made the charge:

you

supply the proof. Got it? Anything less devolves back to the “star chamber” days you have invoked. At the risk of boring everyone, let me repeat:

"What is also notable, by its absence, is

any

legitimate attempt

by you

to resolve this.

You

haven’t

contacted Ayers,

you

haven’t

found a second source to confirm what you maintain you were told by Ms. Eisenhower,

you

haven’t

provided any example of past dissembling by Ayers that might provide a precedent of his lying about anything, and

you

haven't

provided us with rebuttals from other old CIA/WAVE/Military hands of anything else contained in Ayers book. That’s a fairly staggering list of things

you

’ve left undone. Instead, what we have is a knee-jerk reaction from you – “xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire!” – and a series of empty razzle-dazzle dance moves performed to retroactively justify reaching a conclusion

prior

to seeking or providing evidence for that conclusion."

Note however that Robert’s view of fairness does differ depending on whether the person under attack is a distinguished former political leader of our democracy or a two-bit communist dictator whose regime is noted for its abuses for civil rights. When I quoted a book by a respected author that Castro had plotted bombings of New York shopping centers, which the author asserted was based on FBI reports, Robert did not extend to that author the same leniency he shows to Brad Ayers.

This is a complete misstatement of fact, Tim. Two and a half years ago, when Tim referenced the book in question, “Vendetta,” the citations it contained were from news reports in ’62, not FBI reports as he now claims. Given the public arrests of Castro intelligence operatives, as related by the book, a number of Forum members – Speer, Hancock, Ecker, me, et al – expressed surprise that we hadn’t previously heard of this event and wanted more information. As it turns out, the arrests never led to a trial, which means that

all

that transpired

were

the arrests. Here, Tim falsely equates requests for more information about something that

should have been in the public record

with information that has

never before

been made public. It’s not a terribly clever bait and switch type of dodge, but is, predictably, par for the course.

Moreover, on April 21, 2005, Tim wrote:

To Robert and others:

What I understand is that the persons arrested for the plot were ultimately exchanged for prisoners inside Cuba.

I have read the articles (I did pay to download them). I cannot easily find a way to copy them here but I will soon retype them so the text can be posted.

We are still awaiting that definitive proof. No doubt in the spring of 2010 we will still be waiting for Tim to contact Bradley Ayers.

Robert can employ all of the rhetorical flourishes he wants but he cannot hide the fact that Ayers has accused a distinguished American of murder based solely on the word of a person

whose identity he will not disclose. Yet I suspect Robert would join the historical attack on Joseph McCarthy, for his sin of accusing persons of Communism based on scanty information or the word of questionable accusers.

Alluding to my "rhetorical flourishes" doesn't change a critically singular fact, Tim: whatever

you

wish to know about Ayers can be determined by contacting

him

, not by arguing endlessly with me or Bill Kelly or anyone else. Oddly, you invoke McCarthy, whom

you

have emulated here recently by proclaiming Ayers a “xxxx,” solely “based on scanty information or the word of [one] questionable accuser.”

Well, I do intend to make inquiry of Ayers but upon my terms and timing. But it shall be soon.

Uh huh. Well, if I’m still alive in the spring of 2010, please do let me know what you find out, won’t you?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert , it is you who believes that what Ayers writes about BG should be accepted even though he does not name the person who made the claim against BG and pretty clearly implies he does not even KNOW the name of the person with whom he had these conversations. By Ayers' own standards, as enunciated in his affidavit that BK posted, that is not responsible journalism.

You label Mrs. Judy Eisenhower a "questionable accuser"? That is laughable. Now it is true that I have not yet located a second member of BG's staff to confirm what she says (as you pointed out given the passage of time that can be a diificult task), but Ayers offers NOT A SINGLE WITNESS to confirm any part of Pearl's story.

Getting rid of all of the hogwash, and despite your your vain attempts to squirm out of it, it comes down to this: Ayers claims a person whose last name he never bothered to find out told him a story about information her father told her that implicated BG in the assassination plot. You are willing to credit that preposterous story when Ayers by his own implicit admission cannot even name his source.

Yes, indeed I called Ayers a xxxx and believe that as matters develop my accusation will be vindicated. Unless Mrs. Eisenhower is a deliberate xxxx, no such person as Pearl's father ever worked for BG. The only possibilities that exist is that someone conned Ayers or that Ayers made up the entire story.

You claim I should silence my accusations against Ayers because I so far only have a single witness to the falsity of the story yet you do not demand that Ayers retract his accusation against BG when he has not ONE person he can identify to substantiate his accusation. I have Mrs. Eisenhower; Ayers has no one. He cannot even identify his source, for heaven's sake.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert , it is you who believes that what Ayers writes about BG should be accepted even though he does not name the person who made the claim against BG and pretty clearly implies he does not even KNOW the name of the person with whom he had these conversations.

I don’t believe any such thing. This isn’t within a country mile of anything I’ve written. If you can cite otherwise, please do. If not, please cease mischaracterizing what you cannot rebut without resorting to such underhanded tactics.

By Ayers' own standards, as enunciated in his affidavit that BK posted, that is not responsible journalism.

No, it’s not. If that’s what he’s done, he should be called to account for such a lapse. But the only way you’ll ever determine that with certainty is to contact him, which you’ve promised to do for nearly a month. I have no idea what motivates your reluctance. Any time I’ve had questions about an author’s work I have contacted them with my questions, where possible. Sometimes this has led to most enlightening exchanges; sometimes to frustration. Either way, I have made that effort. For reasons that shouldn’t mystify anyone who knows about your past track record here, you cannot be bothered, but will instead employ name-calling and mischaracterization. The longer you wait to do the decent thing, the more poorly it reflects upon

you

, not Ayers.

You label Mrs. Judy Eisenhower a "questionable accuser"?

No, that’s how I labeled

you

. The last time I checked, Ms. Eisenhower’s only statement to you was that nobody fitting the description given by Ayers worked for Goldwater. I don’t recall her sinking to your level and calling Ayers a “xxxx.” Perhaps

she

is capable of thought that requires more than two dimensions. Perhaps

she

knows that calling someone a "xxxx" requires evidence, not just bluster.

That is laughable. Now it is true that I have not yet located a second member of BG's staff to confirm what she says (as you pointed out given the passage of time that can be a diificult task), but Ayers offers NOT A SINGLE WITNESS to confirm any part of Pearl's story.

Again, contact Ayers for evidence supporting that contention. I didn’t write the book; he did.

Getting rid of all of the hogwash, and despite your your vain attempts to squirm out of it, it comes down to this: Ayers claims a person whose last name he never bothered to find out told him a story about information her father told her that implicated BG in the assassination plot. You are willing to credit that preposterous story when Ayers by his own implicit admission cannot even name his source.

I am not prepared to credit anything. I only note that by referring to Ayers as a “xxxx” without having contacted him with your questions, your behaviour is unseemly and unworthy of this Forum. When it becomes The Speculation Forum, you’ll be entitled to post whatever fantasy suits your whims. But, since it is still the Education Forum, shouldn’t certain basic protocols still apply? Shouldn’t evidence

precede

conclusions, rather than

follow

it? You make much of the notion that an accused is entitled to face those making the accusation, which is correct. Why then do you refrain from providing Ayers with that basic courtesy? It is the height of hypocrisy for you to insist upon one standard for

others

while failing to meet it

yourself

. You can continue resorting to cheap parlour tricks all you like, Tim. The end result is the same. And will remain so until you’ve lived up to

your

own obligations, as you’ve repeatedly claimed you would do.

Yes, indeed I called Ayers a xxxx and believe that as matters develop my accusation will be vindicated. Unless Mrs. Eisenhower is a deliberate xxxx, no such person as Pearl's father ever worked for BG. The only possibilities that exist is that someone conned Ayers or that Ayers made up the entire story.

What you “believe” about your pending “vindication” is immaterial. What you can

prove

is highly material. Yet you’ve managed to prove nothing thus far, other than the depths to which you’ll stoop to avoid that fundamental responsibility.

If Ayers was suckered by “Pearl,” as you seem prepared to entertain, then he is

not

the “xxxx” you have branded him, but something decidedly less foul. Can you not see how your

own

rush to judgment, based solely on outrage rather than evidence, undermines

your

already limited credibility here? Can you not see how

your

unkept promises to contact Ayers over the past month only highlight your

own

desperation to avoid doing what we all,

including

you, know that you

must

?

You claim I should silence my accusations against Ayers because I so far only have a single witness to the falsity of the story yet you do not demand that Ayers retract his accusation against BG when he has not ONE person he can identify to substantiate his accusation. I have Mrs. Eisenhower; Ayers has no one. He cannot even identify his source, for heaven's sake.

You don’t, and won’t, know this with certainty until you’ve contacted him, which basic human decency requires of

you

. No matter how you try to shift the burden of proof onto others, it remains with

you

because

you

are the one who made the accusation.

So I repeat, and will continue to do so until

you

actually live up to

your

own self-admitted obligations:

"What is also notable, by its absence, is any legitimate attempt by

you

to resolve this.

You

haven’t

contacted Ayers,

you

haven’t

found a second source to confirm what you maintain you were told by Ms. Eisenhower,

you

haven’t

provided any example of past dissembling by Ayers that might provide a precedent of his lying about anything, and

you

haven't

provided us with rebuttals from other old CIA/WAVE/Military hands of anything else contained in Ayers book. That’s a fairly staggering list of things

you

’ve left undone. Instead, what we have is a knee-jerk reaction from you – “xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire!” – and a series of empty razzle-dazzle dance moves performed to retroactively justify reaching a conclusion prior to seeking or providing evidence for that conclusion."

[Tim Gratz]

Robert:

I will contact Ayers when I am ready to. My delay was prompted in part by wanting to reread his Chapters a second time; by reading your arguments and responding to them. But I expect to draft and mail the letter by early next week.

But there is a very bottom line question that should be answered.

Assume I write a book claiming that say Theodore Sorenson was a Communist. I say I base that on a man that knew Sorenson well and attended secret Communist cell meetings with him while JFK was president and that I had several interviews with this informant.

It appears to be your position that those statements should be taken at face value until a defender of Sorenson contacts me to demand that I cite the name of my informant and indicate whether I have any information to support the informant's sensational story.

IMO, that position can be allegorized to mounting a donkey so your nose faces his derriere.

If you seriously think that Sorenson should be considered a Communist until someone can prove I made up the story, so be it. That is your position then.

If I am misreading you, all you have to do is agree that no one should take Ayers' story seriously until he names his informant.

The burden is not, dear sir, on me, to disprove his story.

I think any fair-minded reader of this will agree that no one should be damned as an assassin or a Communist (or even a lawyer) based on the statement of an unidentified source. It wasn't right when McCarthy did it and it is no more right when Ayers does it. (I of course apologized after I accused you of a lawyerly-like craftiness.)

Edited November 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert:

Can you please state whether you have read the five articles that Mark Howell and I co-authored re the JFK case which were published in "The Key West Citizen" in November of 2003?

[Guest]

In case you have issues seeing these two vids, then go via www.proxysite.com paster the url in and make sure you choose EU server.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I'm interested in the opinions of the members here regarding Ayers' credibility. The theory of the 3 CIA men at the RFK assassination as postulated by Shane O'Sullivan seems to have been debunked. This theory relied in part on the identification of the men by Ayers (and a couple others) as Joannides, Morales and Campbell. O'Sullivan (who started all of this) himself later identified two of the men as Bulova watch executives who were attending a conference. And Campbell evidently died in 1962, so not only could he not have been at the Ambassador Hotel, but Ayers could not have met him in 1963 as he claims.

So, where are the members on this situation today? Does anyone here still believe the "3 CIA men at the Ambassador" theory? Did Ayers simply make up his Gordon Campbell remembrances? Is it possible someone else at JMWAVE used Campbell's name when working with Ayers and if so who? Ayers says Campbell was deputy COS but according to Morley he was not. But who was? How about Ayers' theory that Goldwater killed JFK?

[Larry Hancock]

At this point about the only thing I find useful in Ayers work are his descriptions of personnel interactions at WAVE related to his training assignment - including his description of Morales. In addition the more we are able to actually compare WAVE operational documents of the period in which he was assigned the more some of his descriptions of his own training of Cuban volunteers becomes questionable as well.  By the summer of 1963 WAVE was running so few missions that they had even laid off or detached many of the extensively trained and experienced paramilitary Cuban's that had been used in operations following the Bay of Pigs...and it would not be until Fall that JFK approved new sabotage missions. Bottom line is that I just don't find Ayers useful in the way I once hoped, even though I do have an autographed edition of his first book...sigh.

[David Andrews]

Was Cuba left to Castro under the Johnson administration because no one in or above government could bear an incident exposing any personnel with knowledge of the JFK assassination?

You know, like when Howard Hunt got arrested, and Nixon was paralyzed by what would emerge if Hunt tore the scab off the BOP affair..

Edited May 27, 2019 by David Andrews

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

At this point about the only thing I find useful in Ayers work are his descriptions of personnel interactions at WAVE related to his training assignment - including his description of Morales. In addition the more we are able to actually compare WAVE operational documents of the period in which he was assigned the more some of his descriptions of his own training of Cuban volunteers becomes questionable as well.  By the summer of 1963 WAVE was running so few missions that they had even laid off or detached many of the extensively trained and experienced paramilitary Cuban's that had been used in operations following the Bay of Pigs...and it would not be until Fall that JFK approved new sabotage missions. Bottom line is that I just don't find Ayers useful in the way I once hoped, even though I do have an autographed edition of his first book...sigh.

Thanks for the reply Larry and I agree that Ayers' recollections are suspect at this point. However, I am at a loss to explain his detailed descriptions of Campbell or the man he thought was Campbell. It is difficult to believe he made all of this up although it is certainly possible since he apparently needed money at different times in his life and admits to living out of his car at one point. I wonder if it is possible that his case officer might have used the recently deceased Campbell's name to deal with Ayers (under the "need to know" theory) since he was Army and not a CIA employee. BTW, any idea on who the deputy COS might be? The only references I can find on this state that Campbell was but Morley says (without attribution) that Campbell was not deputy COS.