Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, you wrote: "Since every witness can be discredited. . ." Huh? Generally only witnesses who are liars can be impeached although witnesses who have a finabcial interest in the outcome can be impeached. I suspect Ayers' motivation is a desire to increase sales of his book via a sensational revelation.

A question, Bill: why are you more interested in whether someone attempted to falsely blame the assassination on Fidel Castro than you are in whether Ayes is falsely blaming the assassination on a distinguished American political leader?

You wrote:

"That BEA's After Action Report on his mission on the Rex is still being withheld" How do you know this? Has some government entity confirmed that such a report exists? Have you done a FOIA search? Please enlighten us.

You wrote:

In addition, one of the commando team leaders is Juilo Fernandez, who Clare Booth Luce says she financially supported and outfitted and did a story on in Life Mag, and who called her on the night of the assassination to inform her that his outfit was familiar with the accused assassin and had audio tapes of him as well as other information. How do you know that Fernandez went on a mission with Ayers? Do you have any evidence to support that, other tham Ayers' statements?

Finally, you wrote: You are the only one who is accusing BEA of lying and making up the Pearl/Goldwater story, which I am not interested in, unless it can be further developed. Bill, I am the one who took the initiative to attempt to verify at least part of his story. It says a lot that you are not interested in verifying whether or not Ayers is a truth-teller. You already personally vouched for his honesty. The fact that you want him as a witness for your Mock Grand Jury demonstrates to me that you are not interested in the truth but only in witnesses who support your agenda, regardless of their reliability. I am sad to have discovered that. I would have thought you would be the first to want to either credit or discredit Ayers.

Really, finally, the leader of this Forum recently wrote in another thread: One of the most important aspects of writing about the JFK assassination is deciding on who is a reliable source of information Advise you should take to heart, Bill. One of the ways to determine that is to verify whether other information the person has supplied is true or false. You simply cannot honestly write about the assassination without investigating the reliability of your sources.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, it frankly amazes me that you apparently have done nothing at all to attempt to verify Ayers' sensational story about Pearl and Goldwater. I mean, if true, it places Goldwater as one of the prime movers behind the assassination.

Am I wrong to suspect that in your heart you suspect that story is bogus? I think I picked up a possible hint of that in one or two of your posts.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

BK wrote, in his thread about his Mock Grand Jury Project:

WE DON'T HAVE TO FORCE WITNESSES TO TESTIFY, THEY TOO WANT THE TRUTH - JAMES TAGUE, HARRY DEAN, BRADLEY AYERS,....ETC. AND THERE ARE DOZENS OF HONEST, TRUTHFUL WITNESSES.

BK, please, please don't use the phrase "honest, truthful witnesses in the same sentence as Bradley Ayers.

Yes, Bill; please don't call Ayers "honest" or "truthful" because Tim has powerful evidence to the contrary, as we'll soon see.

In the chapters on "The Zenith Secret" that you posted here Ayers claimed that he talked at length with a lady named Pearl who claimed her father had worked on Goldwater's staff and had delivered, shortly before the assassination, two suitcases full of cash, which he obtained from Robert Maheu and William Bonnano in Las Vegas (at Goldwater's request) to a CIA operative in Dallas and to David Morales and Johnny Rosselli in New Orleans, with the deliveries again being requested by Goldwater himself.

So, Ayers makes no claim of having personal knowledge of this series of events; he only recounts what was told to him. Presumably, according to Tim, he should have left that part out of the book, pending confirmation from other sources. Yet, whom might those other sources be?

I found several things strage about this account. First, Goldwater was by all accounts a personal friend of JFK.

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention.

Second, Goldwater's reputation as a straight-shooter was impeccable. He called RN the biggest xxxx he had ever known and refused to even attend Nixon's funeral.

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention.

Third, it would make no sense for a conspirator to ask someone who was not part of the plot to pick up and deliver the money. Pearl claims her father was an honest man. If so, why did he not go to the authorities after Dallas?

As somebody who realized [perhaps only after the fact] that he had aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy, perhaps he was unwilling to 1) place himself in criminal jeopardy or 2) place himself between the crosshairs of CIA and/or the Mob. Seems rather a no-brainer, somehow.

Fourth, Ayers never mentions the name of Pearl's father. We do not even know that Pearl even had a father.

Since everyone conceived has a father, can we not agree that Pearl has one too? The question is who he was and whether his story is true, and whether Pearl conveyed it accurately. Moreoever, nothing in the tale indicates that Goldwater or Pearl's father knew, at the time the money was being delivered, what the money was intended for, nor that it played any role in the assassination. It is an interesting anecdotal tale that ultimately reveals nothing more than it contains. Cash gets couriered between Point A and Point B for purposes still unknown. Goldwater may very well have been told that it was for some other ostensibly legitimate purpose being pursued by CIA. So what?

Fifth, as I assume you know, BK, any investigative reporter worth his salt and pepper is going to attempt to verify his source. I do not recall Ayers claiming he ever attempted to verify whether Pearl's father was on BG's staff.

How interesting that Tim mentions seeking a second confirmation before making any damning allegations. For, as we see below, it is among his own numerous failings.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE IS THE CLINCHER:

This morning I spoke with Mrs. Judy Eisenhower. (Yes, I asked her, her husband's father was the brother of President Eisenhower.) Mrs. Eisenhower was the long time chief of staff to BG, including during the period in question. She said that BG never had a staff member with a daughter named Pearl. You know, that revelation did not surprise me at all.

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

I will never believe another article written by Ayers. (By article I mean words such as "a" and "the"; I won't believe any other words he writes either.)

And BK, I assume you will now withdraw your request that this xxxx participate in your Mock Grand Jury. No, I take that back: let him repeat his Pearl story under oath!

This is most rich coming from this particular source.

We have a man who was demonstrably a part of the anti-Castro activities back in the day summarily labelled a "xxxx," based solely upon unconfirmed and uncorroborated speculation arising from an alleged chance meeting with a lady during her motel checkin.

And the man who so easily tosses about the word "xxxx," as though completely unfamiliar with libel and slander laws? Why, it is an ex-lawyer who was disbarred for, among other things, misappropriation of funds; borrowing money from clients for himself and family members and friends and a loan in the name of another person, without repaying the loans; conversion to his own use of monies held in his trust account on behalf of clients; his failure to turn over funds to clients entitled to them following a bankruptcy proceeding and his conversion of those funds to his own use; his failure to maintain required trust account documents and records and his having falsely certified that he had complied with those recordkeeping requirements; his failure to timely file federal and state income tax returns for the years 1987 to 1992; his continuing to practice law while suspended from practice for failure to pay State Bar dues, etc., etc.

These may be facts worth considering in trying to determine just who qualifies for the epithet "xxxx" and upon what basis that epithet is applied.

[Tim Gratz]

I wrote:

Fourth, Ayers never mentions the name of Pearl's father. We do not even know that Pearl even had a father.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Since everyone conceived has a father, can we not agree that Pearl had one too?

I will start with that because I was just waiting for someone to catch it. Robert Charles-Dunne is of course incorrect in what he asserts. Only real human beings, whether alive or dead, have parents. My implication was that we do not even know whether Pearl existed. Ayers does not provide her last name either.

Robert also wrote:

So, Ayers makes no claim of having personal knowledge of this series of events; he only recounts what was told to him. Presumably, according to Tim, he should have left that part out of the book, pending confirmation from other sources. Yet, whom might those other sources be?

So I start by reaffirming my first point. Based on the failure of Ayers to provide further information, we do not even know that Pearl existed. For all we are in a position to know, Ayers is not recounting what someone told but is making up the entire story. Given the improbazbility of the story and Ayer's failure to identify Pearl (and Mrs. Eisenhower's statement that no staff member had a daughter named Pearl, that possibility cannot be summarily dismissed.

Robert asks, should he have left out that part of the book, pending confirmation from other sources? Well, Robert may be an accomplished musician but he clearly has little knowledge of journalism. It is journalism ethics 101 that an investigative reporter should confirm his sources. And how on earth can you ask what those other sources might be? I agree that there may have been no witnesses to the alleged conversations between BG and the alleged Pearl's father, or proof of his travels, but it would have certainly been easy for Ayers to attempt to confirm whether Pearl's father actually worked for BG. And through Pearl Ayers could have obtained certified copies of her father's income tax returns and W2 statements, which would have confirmed his employment. Did Ayers have an obligation to make these very minimal attempts to confirm her story before he published her story (again assuming that Pearl herself even existed). I stay the answer is obvious.

It was Ayers' failure to provide this confirmation that initially led me to question the entire story.

I wrote:

I found several things strage about this account. First, Goldwater was by all accounts a personal friend of JFK.

Robert replied:

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention.

Huh? Friends don't murder friends at least other than in the heat of passion. Now if BG had found JFK fooling around with Peggy, that might be a different story. And although I did not put this in the first post, it would have been clear to BG that the martydom of JFK doomed his chances for the presidency. If he did have murder in mind, why did he at least not wait until after the 1964 election? Had he done so, there was at least a chance he would not have had to risk his own life by involving himself in a capital offense.

I wrote:

Second, Goldwater's reputation as a straight-shooter was impeccable. He called RN the biggest xxxx he had ever known and refused to even attend Nixon's funeral.

To which Robert replied:

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention

My only response here is "Huh?" Last I heard most honest persons do not commit murder. If BG was so ethical he refused in principle to attend the funeral of RN, it is nonsensical to assume he was a murderer. Last I checked murder was considered a far more reprehensible moral failure than dishonesty.

I wrote:

Third, it would make no sense for a conspirator to ask someone who was not part of the plot to pick up and deliver the money. Pearl claims her father was an honest man. If so, why did he not go to the authorities after Dallas?

To which Robert responded:

As somebody who realized [perhaps only after the fact] that he had aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy, perhaps he was unwilling to 1) place himself in criminal jeopardy or 2) place himself between the crosshairs of CIA and/or the Mob. Seems rather a no-brainer, somehow.

Notice that Robert deliberately does not address my first point. It is, as he puts it, a "no-brainer" that no conspirator would entrust such a sensitive job to a person not part of the conspiracy. I mean if you were the conspirator, would you?

Robert states that after the assassination Pearl's father may not have come forward for fear of possible criminal exposure or fear of retaliation by the actual conspirators. Let's deal with the last point first. If this had actually happened, and I was Pearl's father, armed with that explosive knowledge, dead right I would have been in fear for my life. But there would only be two ways to deal with that fear: a) flee; or put your story on public record. Anyone who believes there were mysterious deaths of witnesses has to disbelieve Ayers' story. Because if it was true, you can bet your bottom dollar that Pearl's father would have died a mysterious death before the sun set on November 22nd. No one would even have reason to link his death to the assassination. Pearl could have protected himself only by immediately going to the authorities. And of course if the story was true (it obviously is NOT) Pearl increased his possible criminal exposure by NOT immediately going to the authorities.

And let us back up a bit. Pearl claims her father was an honorable man. So assume BG orders him to go to Las Vegas and he picks up two suitcases of money from Robert Maheu (no problem there) and from a notorious gangster. If Pearl was honest, don't you think he would have immediately gone to Goldwater and told him, "I am sure you do not know this, Senator, but there was a well-known criminal present when I received that money in Vegas." Unless BG then promised Pearl's father to return it, any honorable man would have immediately resigned from Goldwater's staff. Honorable men do not act as couriers for the mafia.

Robert wrote:

Moreoever, nothing in the tale indicates that Goldwater or Pearl's father knew, at the time the money was being delivered, what the money was intended for, nor that it played any role in the assassination. It is an interesting anecdotal tale that ultimately reveals nothing more than it contains. Cash gets couriered between Point A and Point B for purposes still unknown. Goldwater may very well have been told that it was for some other ostensibly legitimate purpose being pursued by CIA. So what?

All I can say to Robert here is "Get real". The CIA needs money transmitted from a mafioso to Las Vegas to their operatives in Dallas and New Orleans and (regardless of the purpose of the funds) they are a little short on operatives in the fall of 1963 so they decide to ask a U.S. Senator if he can possibly lend them one of his employees to make the transfer? What sense does that make? And if the story happened as Pearl claimed it did (again assuming there even IS a Pearl) who on God's earth would reach a conclusion that the funds transfer was NOT associated with the assassination? If the story is as innocuous as the spin Robert now tries to put on it, then why would Ayers bother to include it in his book?

Robert wrote:

This morning I spoke with Mrs. Judy Eisenhower. (Yes, I asked her, her husband's father was the brother of President Eisenhower.) Mrs. Eisenhower was the long time chief of staff to BG, including during the period in question. She said that BG never had a staff member with a daughter named Pearl. You know, that revelation did not surprise me at all. (Here he is quoting me.)

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

Robert demonstrates his ignorance and failure to do his homework here. I determined who BG's chief of staff was by doing an extensive two hour search on the Internet. After reading Ayers' story, I wanted to contact someone who had been close to BG (or could direct me to someone who was) to attempt to determine whether there was a" Pearl's father" who had worked for BG. I looked for addresses of BG's sons; I looked at the directors of the Goldwater Institute; and then finally I ran into the name of Judy Eisenhower as BG's chief of staff. I thern googled her name and discovered she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm.

Robert, are you seriously asserting that Judy Eisenhower was not BG's chief of staff during the years in question?

Look at how cleverly deceptive Robert is. He states in effect that I did not attempt to verify whether "Mrs. Eisenhower could make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know". Look at the deceit in that sentence. (Robert would have made a good attorney.) The claim was not made by Pearl that her father simply KNEW BG; it was that he was a long-time member of BG's staff. In other words, Mrs. Eisenhower had for a long time been his employer and boss! Now I would concede it would be unlikely that Mrs. Eisenhower could know the family members of everyone who knew BG; but she certainly knew who her long-time employees were.

Why did Robert have to twist my words (and Pearl's story) to attempt to discredit it?

It gets even worse!

Robert writes:

We have a man who was demonstrably a part of the anti-Castro activities back in the day summarily labelled a "xxxx," based solely upon unconfirmed and uncorroborated speculation arising from an alleged chance meeting with a lady during her motel checkin.

Where in the world does Robert get the idea that I had a "chance encounter" with Mrs. Esisenhower when she checked in to a motel (hey, it's not a motel anyway!) at which I was working? He is an intellligent man. That statement is ALMOSt enough for me to question HIS honesty, because if that is what I claimed happened, it does cast doubt on what I wrote. Like I said, it was through Google research that I determined who BG's chief of staff was. So when it got to be 10:00 a.m. Phoenix time I called her on the phone.

And how does he get by with calling her interview with me "unconfirmed and uncorroborated speculation"? Again, IF there was a Pearl (and that is a BIG if) she claims her father worked for many years for the chief of staff of BG. That lady was Judy Eisenhower. She obviously had direct and personal knowledge of who her employees were.

And why is he so incensed that I have the temerity to question Bradley Ayers?

A real question has been raised about the truth of a very important part of Ayers' book. There is sufficient evidence to suspect he may have invented this story to sell his book. I say that anyone with respect for the memory of JFK should be incensed that someone is oughtv to profit from his death through spreading a false and sensational story. Bill should be contacting Ayers and asking him for an explanation and corroboration.

I have no question that Judy Eisenhower knew what she was talking about. As it stands, there is substantial evidence that no one fitting the description in Ayers' book ever worked for BG. If that is true, there are, I submit, only two posibilities: there was a Pearl and she conned Ayers, who negligently did not bother to confirm her story; or second, that there never even was a Pearl and Ayers manufactured the entire story to sell his book.

Finally, of course I deeply regret my Bar problems. The short of it was I got way in over my head financially because of being massively outspent by the defense in a medical malpractice case. I did dip in to a trust account and was in the process of paying it back. There is no excuse for what I did. And it is why I now work for low wages as a desk clerk so I am paying for my moral lapse (as I should be). But what I did twenty years agot has no bearing on my posts and research in this case. I think it shows Robert's desperation to discredit me that he stoops to this ad hominen attack.

Why is he so desperate to sustain Ayers' credibility? The answer is obvious. It is because Ayers in other areas adds support to Robert's theory of the case. And Robert knows full well that if Ayers lied about the Goldwater matter there is no reason to trust anything he says or writes.

As John Simkin wrote, an important task of any (honest) assassination researcher should be to check the integrity of his or her sources. Bill Kelly failed to ask Ayers obvious questions such as: One: What was the name of Pearl's father? Two: Did you attempt to verify thast he did indeed work for BG? Three: Can you provide me proof of that verification? Three simple but unasked questions. Based on what Judy Eisenhower told me, IMO Ayers' credibility is no greater than that of James Files.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[J. Raymond Carroll]

the info BEA has supplied me that otherwise checks out, will also be compared with the JMWAVE records already released and will give emphesis to those still being withheld.

Since every witness can be discredited, you call attention to those who you target for such smearing.

BK

Mr. Kelly, I think you would be making a grave mistake in enlisting Bradley Ayers into the movement to re-open the JFK assassination. Ayers has never had the 'ayer' of credibility about him, and he never will.

Rely on him at your own peril.

[William Kelly]

the info BEA has supplied me that otherwise checks out, will also be compared with the JMWAVE records already released and will give emphesis to those still being withheld.

Since every witness can be discredited, you call attention to those who you target for such smearing.

BK

Mr. Kelly, I think you would be making a grave mistake in enlisting Bradley Ayers into the movement to re-open the JFK assassination. Ayers has never had the 'ayer' of credibility about him, and he never will.

Rely on him at your own peril.

JRC, I am not relying on him or anyone, nor am I enlisting him into the movement to re-open the JFK assassination.

Whether credible to you or not, he is a veteran of USA Rangers and CIA JMWAVE Office of Training, who has supplied more info about the organization, operations and personell of JMWAVE than anyone else.

If you know of any other eyewitnesses to JMWAVE operations, other than Porter Goss, I'd like to talk to them.

And if you have any information that contradicts the information in BEA's book "Zenith Secret," I'd like to know of it.

Otherwise, I'll chose who to believe and who not to believe, at my own peril.

I belive BEA was assigned to JMWAVE, I believe he trained Cuban commandos, I believe one of them was team leader Julio Fernandez, another Tony Sforza, and that BEA went on a mission aboard the CIA ship Rex, and wrote a still withheld After Action Report, and worked closely with suspects Morales, Campbell and Phillips.

If he testifies to what he knows about those subject and the information checks out from JMWAVE records and the interviews and testimony of other JMWAVE personell, then I don't have a problem with him.

You also have a problem with what Tony Veciana has to say and others involved in these shennagans, but when it comes to beliving witnesses, you don't have much of a choice. Either the witness was there - or he wasn't, and it either went down as they say, or it didn't. If it can be verified they were there and are indeed witnesses, then what they have to say is important and must be weighed with the other circumstantial evidence.

Eventually you have to believe someone, and I believe Brad Ayers.

You don't have to, and if he ever gets a chance to testify and answer the questions put to him, then not only you and I can decide if we believe him, but maybe the grand jury will get that opportunity too.

BK

[Miles Scull]

the info BEA has supplied me that otherwise checks out, will also be compared with the JMWAVE records already released and will give emphesis to those still being withheld.

Since every witness can be discredited, you call attention to those who you target for such smearing.

BK

Mr. Kelly, I think you would be making a grave mistake in enlisting Bradley Ayers into the movement to re-open the JFK assassination. Ayers has never had the 'ayer' of credibility about him, and he never will.

Rely on him at your own peril.

You (J. Raymond Carroll) are completely wrong in this case. I surmise that you do not know the subject or his works.

I have made a close study of Brad's works & have thoroughly cross checked them against the canon of related research to try facts & for verification.

Also, I have spoken to Brad & a variety of people who know & have known Brad, who hold varying opinions of him & his works.

Brad Ayers tells the truth.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

I wrote:

Fourth, Ayers never mentions the name of Pearl's father. We do not even know that Pearl even had a father.

Robert Charles-Dunne wrote:

Since everyone conceived has a father, can we not agree that Pearl had one too?

I will start with that because I was just waiting for someone to catch it. Robert Charles-Dunne is of course incorrect in what he asserts. Only real human beings, whether alive or dead, have parents. My implication was that we do not even know whether Pearl existed. Ayers does not provide her last name either.

Then perhaps instead of instantly branding Ayers a "xxxx," you might have done what you consistently urge Bill Kelly to do, and contacted Ayers yourself to determine the facts of the matter. But far easier to simply dash off a post in which you label him a "xxxx." This is a hypocritically inconsistent application of the standards you insist should be followed. And not the only such instance, as we'll see.

Robert also wrote:

So, Ayers makes no claim of having personal knowledge of this series of events; he only recounts what was told to him. Presumably, according to Tim, he should have left that part out of the book, pending confirmation from other sources. Yet, whom might those other sources be?

So I start by reaffirming my first point. Based on the failure of Ayers to provide further information, we do not even know that Pearl existed. For all we are in a position to know, Ayers is not recounting what someone told but is making up the entire story. Given the improbazbility of the story and Ayer's failure to identify Pearl (and Mrs. Eisenhower's statement that no staff member had a daughter named Pearl, that possibility cannot be summarily dismissed.

Then perhaps instead of instantly branding Ayers a "xxxx," you might have done what you consistently urge Bill Kelly to do, and contacted Ayers yourself to determine the facts of the matter. But far easier to simply dash off a post in which you label him a "xxxx." This is a hypocritically inconsistent application of the standards you insist should be followed. And not the only such instance, as we'll see.

Robert asks, should he have left out that part of the book, pending confirmation from other sources? Well, Robert may be an accomplished musician but he clearly has little knowledge of journalism.

Perhaps not. However, my output has been published by Canada's two largest circulation daily papers and a dozen-plus general interest magazines. Each has had fact-checkers, and not a one of these periodicals would allow anything into print branding an author a "xxxx," without demonstrable proof for the assertion. I notice you feel no such obligation to provide demonstrable proof, which speaks to your motive and methods. Perhaps you could give us further dissertations on your wide ranging knowledge of "journalism," based upon your contributions to the Key West Coupon Clipper.

It is journalism ethics 101 that an investigative reporter should confirm his sources. And how on earth can you ask what those other sources might be? I agree that there may have been no witnesses to the alleged conversations between BG and the alleged Pearl's father, or proof of his travels, but it would have certainly been easy for Ayers to attempt to confirm whether Pearl's father actually worked for BG.

And how do you know that he didn't already do so? Just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

And through Pearl Ayers could have obtained certified copies of her father's income tax returns and W2 statements, which would have confirmed his employment. Did Ayers have an obligation to make these very minimal attempts to confirm her story before he published her story (again assuming that Pearl herself even existed). I stay the answer is obvious.

And how do you know that he didn't already do so? Just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

It was Ayers' failure to provide this confirmation that initially led me to question the entire story.

It is also possible that Ayers altered her first name and left the surname out in order to protect her. If you'd given that any consideration, presumably you'd have made mention of it. However, it's far easier to simply toss around the word "xxxx," as though you are in a position to know.

I wrote:

I found several things strage about this account. First, Goldwater was by all accounts a personal friend of JFK.

Robert replied:

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention.

Huh? Friends don't murder friends at least other than in the heat of passion. Now if BG had found JFK fooling around with Peggy, that might be a different story. And although I did not put this in the first post, it would have been clear to BG that the martydom of JFK doomed his chances for the presidency. If he did have murder in mind, why did he at least not wait until after the 1964 election? Had he done so, there was at least a chance he would not have had to risk his own life by involving himself in a capital offense.

The allegation is that money was moved. Does Ayers specify that either Goldwater or the courier who delivered the cash knew in advance the purpose to which it was to be put? Did either man know for certain, after the assassination, that the cash had played some role in it? If not, your points are irrelevant.

I wrote:

Second, Goldwater's reputation as a straight-shooter was impeccable. He called RN the biggest xxxx he had ever known and refused to even attend Nixon's funeral.

To which Robert replied:

Ayers' recounting of Pearl's story in no way discounts or diminishes that contention

My only response here is "Huh?" Last I heard most honest persons do not commit murder. If BG was so ethical he refused in principle to attend the funeral of RN, it is nonsensical to assume he was a murderer. Last I checked murder was considered a far more reprehensible moral failure than dishonesty.

The allegation is that money was moved. Does Ayers specify that either Goldwater or the courier who delivered the cash knew in advance the purpose to which it was to be put? Did either man know for certain, after the assassination, that the cash had played some role in it? If not, your points are irrelevant.

I wrote:

Third, it would make no sense for a conspirator to ask someone who was not part of the plot to pick up and deliver the money. Pearl claims her father was an honest man. If so, why did he not go to the authorities after Dallas?

To which Robert responded:

As somebody who realized [perhaps only after the fact] that he had aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy, perhaps he was unwilling to 1) place himself in criminal jeopardy or 2) place himself between the crosshairs of CIA and/or the Mob. Seems rather a no-brainer, somehow.

Notice that Robert deliberately does not address my first point. It is, as he puts it, a "no-brainer" that no conspirator would entrust such a sensitive job to a person not part of the conspiracy. I mean if you were the conspirator, would you?

Robert states that after the assassination Pearl's father may not have come forward for fear of possible criminal exposure or fear of retaliation by the actual conspirators. Let's deal with the last point first. If this had actually happened, and I was Pearl's father, armed with that explosive knowledge, dead right I would have been in fear for my life. But there would only be two ways to deal with that fear: a) flee; or put your story on public record. Anyone who believes there were mysterious deaths of witnesses has to disbelieve Ayers' story. Because if it was true, you can bet your bottom dollar that Pearl's father would have died a mysterious death before the sun set on November 22nd. No one would even have reason to link his death to the assassination. Pearl could have protected himself only by immediately going to the authorities. And of course if the story was true (it obviously is NOT) Pearl increased his possible criminal exposure by NOT immediately going to the authorities.

And let us back up a bit. Pearl claims her father was an honorable man. So assume BG orders him to go to Las Vegas and he picks up two suitcases of money from Robert Maheu (no problem there) and from a notorious gangster. If Pearl was honest, don't you think he would have immediately gone to Goldwater and told him, "I am sure you do not know this, Senator, but there was a well-known criminal present when I received that money in Vegas." Unless BG then promised Pearl's father to return it, any honorable man would have immediately resigned from Goldwater's staff. Honorable men do not act as couriers for the mafia.

This piffle is unworthy of a response, for reasons that even those of barely functional literacy can divine.

Robert wrote:

Moreoever, nothing in the tale indicates that Goldwater or Pearl's father knew, at the time the money was being delivered, what the money was intended for, nor that it played any role in the assassination. It is an interesting anecdotal tale that ultimately reveals nothing more than it contains. Cash gets couriered between Point A and Point B for purposes still unknown. Goldwater may very well have been told that it was for some other ostensibly legitimate purpose being pursued by CIA. So what?

All I can say to Robert here is "Get real". The CIA needs money transmitted from a mafioso to Las Vegas to their operatives in Dallas and New Orleans and (regardless of the purpose of the funds) they are a little short on operatives in the fall of 1963 so they decide to ask a U.S. Senator if he can possibly lend them one of his employees to make the transfer? What sense does that make? And if the story happened as Pearl claimed it did (again assuming there even IS a Pearl) who on God's earth would reach a conclusion that the funds transfer was NOT associated with the assassination? If the story is as innocuous as the spin Robert now tries to put on it, then why would Ayers bother to include it in his book?

Then perhaps instead of instantly branding Ayers a "xxxx," you might have done what you consistently urge Bill Kelly to do, and contacted Ayers yourself to determine the facts of the matter. But far easier to simply dash off a post in which you label him a "xxxx." This is a hypocritically inconsistent application of the standards you insist should be followed. And not the only such instance, as we'll see.

Robert wrote:

This morning I spoke with Mrs. Judy Eisenhower. (Yes, I asked her, her husband's father was the brother of President Eisenhower.) Mrs. Eisenhower was the long time chief of staff to BG, including during the period in question. She said that BG never had a staff member with a daughter named Pearl. You know, that revelation did not surprise me at all. (Here he is quoting me.)

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

Robert demonstrates his ignorance and failure to do his homework here. I determined who BG's chief of staff was by doing an extensive two hour search on the Internet. After reading Ayers' story, I wanted to contact someone who had been close to BG (or could direct me to someone who was) to attempt to determine whether there was a" Pearl's father" who had worked for BG. I looked for addresses of BG's sons; I looked at the directors of the Goldwater Institute; and then finally I ran into the name of Judy Eisenhower as BG's chief of staff. I thern googled her name and discovered she was a member of a Phoenix lobbying firm.

Robert, are you seriously asserting that Judy Eisenhower was not BG's chief of staff during the years in question?

Don't know and don't care. You see, you consisently advocate to Bill Kelly and others the importance of confirming your own sources, yet you've made not the slightest effort to do so, or you would have mentioned those who corroborated Ms. Eisenhower's statements. That was the "completely predictable and telling oversight" to which I alluded. Surely, your vast journalistic experience includes knowing it is imperative to seek confirmation for what your sources say, doesn't it? It must, since you constantly advocate it for others, yet oddly fail to do it yourself.

Look at how cleverly deceptive Robert is. He states in effect that I did not attempt to verify whether "Mrs. Eisenhower could make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know". Look at the deceit in that sentence. (Robert would have made a good attorney.) The claim was not made by Pearl that her father simply KNEW BG; it was that he was a long-time member of BG's staff. In other words, Mrs. Eisenhower had for a long time been his employer and boss! Now I would concede it would be unlikely that Mrs. Eisenhower could know the family members of everyone who knew BG; but she certainly knew who her long-time employees were.

Why did Robert have to twist my words (and Pearl's story) to attempt to discredit it?

No word twisting required, ex-counsellor. Read your own words: "He states in effect that I did not attempt to verify whether "Mrs. Eisenhower could make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know". That is what I stated, and you didn't make any such attempts to verify what Ms E. told you. "Cleverly deceptive?" Hardly. I said what I meant, and you didn't do what you didn't do, despite insisting that others should.

It gets even worse!

Robert writes:

We have a man who was demonstrably a part of the anti-Castro activities back in the day summarily labelled a "xxxx," based solely upon unconfirmed and uncorroborated speculation arising from an alleged chance meeting with a lady during her motel checkin.

Where in the world does Robert get the idea that I had a "chance encounter" with Mrs. Esisenhower when she checked in to a motel (hey, it's not a motel anyway!) at which I was working? He is an intellligent man. That statement is ALMOSt enough for me to question HIS honesty, because if that is what I claimed happened, it does cast doubt on what I wrote. Like I said, it was through Google research that I determined who BG's chief of staff was. So when it got to be 10:00 a.m. Phoenix time I called her on the phone.

And how does he get by with calling her interview with me "unconfirmed and uncorroborated speculation"?

It is "unconfirmed and uncorroborated" because you made no attempt to seek confirmation or corroboration from anyone in a position to verify Ms. E's claims to you, did you? Surely, this is a matter of plain English, no?

Again, IF there was a Pearl (and that is a BIG if) she claims her father worked for many years for the chief of staff of BG. That lady was Judy Eisenhower. She obviously had direct and personal knowledge of who her employees were.

And why is he so incensed that I have the temerity to question Bradley Ayers?

Your "temerity" is not in merely questioning Ayers, which you have every right to do, but in branding him a "xxxx" without having bothered to prove it.

A real question has been raised about the truth of a very important part of Ayers' book. There is sufficient evidence to suspect he may have invented this story to sell his book. I say that anyone with respect for the memory of JFK should be incensed that someone is oughtv to profit from his death through spreading a false and sensational story. Bill should be contacting Ayers and asking him for an explanation and corroboration.

No, you should be doing this, prior to labelling Ayers a "xxxx."

I have no question that Judy Eisenhower knew what she was talking about. As it stands, there is substantial evidence that no one fitting the description in Ayers' book ever worked for BG. If that is true, there are, I submit, only two posibilities: there was a Pearl and she conned Ayers, who negligently did not bother to confirm her story; or second, that there never even was a Pearl and Ayers manufactured the entire story to sell his book.

Finally, of course I deeply regret my Bar problems. The short of it was I got way in over my head financially because of being massively outspent by the defense in a medical malpractice case. I did dip in to a trust account and was in the process of paying it back. There is no excuse for what I did. And it is why I now work for low wages as a desk clerk so I am paying for my moral lapse (as I should be). But what I did twenty years agot has no bearing on my posts and research in this case. I think it shows Robert's desperation to discredit me that he stoops to this ad hominen attack.

Perhaps you could use a refresher on the definition of "ad hominem." Try this one, from: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

I have no "desperation to discredit" you. You do that quite well by yourself.

Why is he so desperate to sustain Ayers' credibility? The answer is obvious. It is because Ayers in other areas adds support to Robert's theory of the case. And Robert knows full well that if Ayers lied about the Goldwater matter there is no reason to trust anything he says or writes.

I am not "desperate to sustain Ayers' credibility." I've read neither of his books, as yet, so I'm hardly seeking anything from Ayers that might "support [my] theory of the case." However, basic fairness and decency requires that prior to asserting someone is a "xxxx," it is incumbent upon anyone wishing to make that assertion that they demonstrate it to be true, as I've done with you. If anyone here is "desperate," it is you, in trying to impeach Ayers' credibility, based upon the most tortured logical contortions and the flimsiest of evidence, for reasons which are all too clear to those who bother reading your posts.

As John Simkin wrote, an important task of any (honest) assassination researcher should be to check the integrity of his or her sources. Bill Kelly failed to ask Ayers obvious questions such as: One: What was the name of Pearl's father? Two: Did you attempt to verify thast he did indeed work for BG? Three: Can you provide me proof of that verification? Three simple but unasked questions. Based on what Judy Eisenhower told me, IMO Ayers' credibility is no greater than that of James Files.

Rather than constantly assigning homework to others, why don't you do what you contend is necessary? Why don't you contact Ayers and put these questions to him yourself?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, you write brilliantly when you have your thinking cap on. You must however have left it off when you wrote your two posts in this thread. Fotr instance, I wrote:

I agree that there may have been no witnesses to the alleged conversations between BG and the alleged Pearl's father, or proof of his travels, but it would have certainly been easy for Ayers to attempt to confirm whether Pearl's father actually worked for BG.

To which you replied:

And how do you know that he didn't already do so? Just making this up as you go along, aren't you?

Okay, put that hat back on now, Robert. Do you suppose that if Ayers HAD confirmed independently any single point in the alleged Pearl story (remember we do not even know that a "Pearl" existed; we only have Ayers' word for it), he might have gotten around to inserting a single sentence to that effect in his chapters 31 and 32? For instance, all he need have done would be to have written: "And I contacted X (naming X of course) who was a long time employee and X confirmed to me that Pearl's father indeed had worked for BG in the capacity she had told me." One simple sentence among the thousands in those two chapters to show that he had confirmed that much.

Is it not reasonable to assume that had Ayers made any such confirmation, he would have taken the time to add it to his story? The fact that he did not publish any confirmation is abundant evidence to me that he had none.

Robert, you say I should have checked with Ayers re what Mrs. Eisenhower said. It is my position that Bill should have checked Ayers' credibility on these matters before citing him as an honest man and providing a link to those two salacious chapters.

But here goes: Accepting your challenge, I will be GLAD to provide an opportunity to let Ayers respond to the questions I have. I will promise to quote his replies verbatim on the forum. (I do note interestingly that John had asked Ayers to join the forum so he could answer questions about his book and he declined to do so. I wonder why.) Bill obviously has his contact information. If Bill does not want to divulge the contact information to me, I will submit an e-mail to Bill for him to forward to Ayers with a limited number of specific questions. I will post the e-mail on this thread within a day or two. Then we will see if Ayers replies. Caveat to all members: i suggest you not hold your breath waiting for Ayers' reply.

I will respond to some of your comments re the obvious implausibility of the story the alleged Pearl allegedly told Ayers in a subsequent post.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, you wrote: "Since every witness can be discredited. . ." Huh? Generally only witnesses who are liars can be impeached although witnesses who have a finabcial interest in the outcome can be impeached. I suspect Ayers' motivation is a desire to increase sales of his book via a sensational revelation.

TIM, EVERY WITNESS IS VULNERABLE TO ATTACK - JEAN HILL, THE CLOSEST PERSON TO JFK WHEN HE WAS KILLED HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY ATTACKED BY SO CALLED RESEARCHERS/DEBUNKERS, JUST AS ROGER CRAIG, HELEN MARKHAM AND OTHERS.

THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T VOLUNTEER TO BE WITNESSES TO MURDERS, BUT THEY WERE THERE AND WE MUST DEPEND ON THEIR TESTIMONY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED AND TO BEGIN THE JOURNEY TOWARDS IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE.

A question, Bill: why are you more interested in whether someone attempted to falsely blame the assassination on Fidel Castro than you are in whether Ayes is falsely blaming the assassination on a distinguished American political leader?

BECASUE THOSE WHO FALSELY ATTEMPT TO BLAME THE ASSASSINATION ON CASTRO ARE PART OF A PRE-PLANNED AND EXECUTED PSY OP THAT ACCORDING TO PAUL LINEBARGER - THE AUTHOR OF A PSYCHOLOOGICAL WARFARE TEXTBOOK, THAT PROPAGANDA, IF PROPERLY REVIEWED, CAN LEAD TO ITS ACTUAL PERPETRATORS AND REVEAL THEIR MOTIVES AND INTENTIONS.

AS FOR AYERS, I DON'T KNOW THAT HE IS FALSELY BLAMING THE ASSASSINATION ON ANYONE - HE'S JUST REPEATING A STORY SOMEONE TOLD HIM THAT YOU CLAIM YOU ARE NOW INVESTIGATING.

You wrote:

"That BEA's After Action Report on his mission on the Rex is still being withheld" How do you know this? Has some government entity confirmed that such a report exists? Have you done a FOIA search? Please enlighten us.

TIM, HAVE YOU READ BEA'S BOOK?

IF NOT THEN WHY ARE WE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION UNTIL YOU DO?

IN HIS BOOK BEA DESCRIBES IN DETAIL HIS MISSION ON THE REX AND WRITING HIS AAR AND SUBMITTING IT TO GORDON CAMPBELL AND SHACKLEY AND THEIR RESPONSES.

You wrote:

In addition, one of the commando team leaders is Juilo Fernandez, who Clare Booth Luce says she financially supported and outfitted and did a story on in Life Mag, and who called her on the night of the assassination to inform her that his outfit was familiar with the accused assassin and had audio tapes of him as well as other information. How do you know that Fernandez went on a mission with Ayers? Do you have any evidence to support that, other tham Ayers' statements?

CLARE BOOTH LUCE, WIFE OF LIFE MAG PUBLISHER HENRY LUCE, FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED AND WROTE ABOUT HER "BOYS," A GROUP OF ANTI-CASTRO COMMANDOS WHO RAN MISSIONS INTO CUBA, WHO CALLED HER ON THE NIGHT OF THE ASSASSINATION WITH INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACCUSED ASSASSIN.

BEA DESCRIBES TRAINING A GROUP OF JMWAVE COMMANDOS LED BY TEAM LEADER JULIO FERNANDEZ - SO BEA, UNKNOWN TO HIMSELF, CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF JULIO FERNANDEZ, THAT HE WAS A TEAM LEADER AND DID RUN COMMANDO MARITIME MISSIONS INTO CUBA.

WHAT'S NOT TO BELIVE?

Finally, you wrote: You are the only one who is accusing BEA of lying and making up the Pearl/Goldwater story, which I am not interested in, unless it can be further developed. Bill, I am the one who took the initiative to attempt to verify at least part of his story. It says a lot that you are not interested in verifying whether or not Ayers is a truth-teller. You already personally vouched for his honesty. The fact that you want him as a witness for your Mock Grand Jury demonstrates to me that you are not interested in the truth but only in witnesses who support your agenda, regardless of their reliability. I am sad to have discovered that. I would have thought you would be the first to want to either credit or discredit Ayers.

I'M SAD TOO, THAT YOU CLAIM TO HAVE TAKEN ON THIS LINE OF INQUIRY AND INSIST I GO DOWN THAT ROAD TOO.

WELL YOU CHECK OUT PEARL AND GOLDWATER AND I'LL CHECK OUT THE JMWAVE ASSERTIONS BEA MAKES AND WE'LL GET BACK TOGETHER AND COMPARE NOTES, OKAY?

Really, finally, the leader of this Forum recently wrote in another thread: One of the most important aspects of writing about the JFK assassination is deciding on who is a reliable source of information Advise you should take to heart, Bill. One of the ways to determine that is to verify whether other information the person has supplied is true or false. You simply cannot honestly write about the assassination without investigating the reliability of your sources.

I'M WILLING TO GO WITH THAT. I DON'T BELIVE MANY WITNESSES. I DO BELIEVE JAMES TAGUE, JEAN HILL, ADELE EDISEN, HARRY DEAN AND BRADLEY E. aYERS, AMONG OTHERS, AND BELIEVE THAT SUCH WITNESSES ARE VERY SPECIAL PEOPLE WHOSE TESTIMONY IS VITAL TO THE SOLUTION OF THE CRIMES.

YOU BELIEVE WHO YOU WANT TO BELIEVE, AND I'LL TRUST MY OWN GUT, AND IN THE END WE'LL SEE WHO IS RIGHT.

AND IN ADDITION, YOU ACCUSATION THAT BEA IS INTERESTED IN SELLING HIS BOOKS IS ALSO FALSE, SINCE HE IS HAS A NEW YORK LAWYER AND IS TAKING HIS PUBLISHER TO COURT AND IS NOT COOPERATING WITH THEIR MARKETING OR PROMOTING THE BOOK IN ANY WAY.

AND ANOTHER THING - YOU SHOULDN'T CALL HIM A LYER IF YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ HIS BOOK.

BILL KELLY

[William Kelly]

Bill, it frankly amazes me that you apparently have done nothing at all to attempt to verify Ayers' sensational story about Pearl and Goldwater. I mean, if true, it places Goldwater as one of the prime movers behind the assassination.

TIM, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DOINT THAT.

I'M VERIFYING BEA'S STATEMENTS ABOUT JMWAVE AND THE PEOPLE HE WORKED WITH THERE - AND IT'S ALL CHECKING OUT!

Am I wrong to suspect that in your heart you suspect that story is bogus? I think I picked up a possible hint of that in one or two of your posts.

BEA'S STORY ABOUT JMWAVE IS THE MOST DETAILED ACCOUNT WE HAVE SO FAR, AND IS CERTAINLY NOT BOGUS, DESPITE YOUR INSINUATIONS AND ACCUSATIONS.

THE MORE YOU ATTACK HIM WITHOUT JUST CAUSE MAKES ME REALIZE JUST HOW SIGNIFICANT HIS INFORMATION REALLY IS.

BK

[William Kelly]

............................

But here goes: Accepting your challenge, I will be GLAD to provide an opportunity to let Ayers respond to the questions I have. I will promise to quote his replies verbatim on the forum. (I do note interestingly that John had asked Ayers to join the forum so he could answer questions about his book and he declined to do so. I wonder why.)

BRADLEY AYERS IS CURRENTLY HOLDING OUT IN A REMOTE CABIN SOMEWHERE IN THE HILLS OF WISCONSIN, AND HAS NO INTERNET ACCESS.

NOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO WONDER ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.

Bill obviously has his contact information. If Bill does not want to divulge the contact information to me, I will submit an e-mail to Bill for him to forward to Ayers with a limited number of specific questions. I will post the e-mail on this thread within a day or two. Then we will see if Ayers replies. Caveat to all members: i suggest you not hold your breath waiting for Ayers' reply.

BEA'S ADDRESS IS NOT A NATIONAL SECURITY SECRET. I THINK SOMEONE ALREADY POSTED IT IN A PREVIOUS THREAD. I JUST DON'T HAVE IT HANDY, BUT WILL LOCATE IT IF THE PREVIOUS POST WITH HIS ADDRESS CAN'T BE LOCATED QUICKLY.

AND YOU CAN DEAL WITH HIM YOURSELF ON PEARL/GOLDWATER MATTERS, YOUR NEW TASK - ABOUT WHICH YOU SHOULD KNOW ALSO INVOLVES MORALES, BUT YOU SHOULD READ THE BOOK YOURSELF BEFORE POSTING ANY MORE ABOUT IT.

I will respond to some of your comments re the obvious implausibility of the story the alleged Pearl allegedly told Ayers in a subsequent post.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO RATTLE ON ABOUT THE IMPLAUSIBILITY OF A STORY THAT YOU'VE JUST HEARD ABOUT ON THE INTERNET BUT NEVER EVEN READ, HEA? NOW THAT'S IMPLAUSIBLE TO ME.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, readers can judge who is the truth-teller here.

Where the HECK did you copme up with the idea that I never read Ayers on Pearl?

I even posted in this thread that I had forwarded the chapters to Mrs. Eisenhower.

I am smart enough to figure out that in accordance with the standard "falsus in uno" jury instruction if he made up the story of Pearl's father I sure aint't going to spend my hard-earned cash to purchase a book that is probably replete with lies.

As it stands now, IMO. Mrs. Eisenhower's statements demonstrate that either Pearl is a xxxx and ayers never bothered to verify her story or that Ayers invented the whole sordid story.

As the saying goes Caveat Lector.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, readers can judge who is the truth-teller here.

Where the HECK did you copme up with the idea that I never read Ayers on Pearl?

I even posted in this thread that I had forwarded the chapters to Mrs. Eisenhower.

I am smart enough to figure out that in accordance with the standard "falsus in uno" jury instruction if he made up the story of Pearl's father I sure aint't going to spend my hard-earned cash to purchase a book that is probably replete with lies.

As it stands now, IMO. Mrs. Eisenhower's statements demonstrate that either Pearl is a xxxx and ayers never bothered to verify her story or that Ayers invented the whole sordid story.

As the saying goes Caveat Lector.

OKAY Tim,

You made one phone call in order to drop a dime on BEA. Now is that all you're going to do?

While you're closer to the scenes of the crime than I am, maybe you'll check out a few other verifiable leads BEA provides us - and mosey on over to the Diner Key Marina and try to find someone who was there in the early 60s and remembers Gordon Campbell and get the name of his yacht, which will provide a paper trail for its owners.

And check out the West Palm Beach Air Service, in operation in 1963, and get the vin # of their Bell H-13s, and lease information to JMWAVE.

Then there's the accident report from the AFB where BEA witnessed the strange death of "Karl," Gordon Campbell's "Outside Man," who came from Germany and ran street ops.

Now these are "verifiable" leads that if checked out would go a long way in discrediting him or supporting his bonifides.

Let me know what you come up with,

Maby Gordon Winslow will help you out.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, you never answered my question re why you thought I had never read what Ayers posted on a lady he calls Pearl, who may exist or may be a figment of his fertile imagination.

Right now I want to finish putting the nails into the "Pearl's father" story. Than you.

Besides, Miami is a three hour drive from here!

P.S. It took more than one phone call. I spent at least an hour searching the Internet re BG and his relatives and staff members to locate Mrs. Eisenhower.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Tim Gratz