Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

TIM, BRADLEY AYERS IS NOT A JOURNALIST, HE'S A SOLDIER AND A WITNESS TO JMWAVE ACTIVITIES. HE'S A WITNESS WHO WRITES ABOUT WHAT HE KNOWS

Bill, Ayers has no personal knowledge of Pearl's father.

Come on, Bill, let's cut to the chase.

A book-writer is told (well, at least he is allegedly told) by the daughter of a staff member of one of the most prominent politicians in the early 1960s, and a political opponent of JFK, that that politician directed her father to pick up a suitcase of money from a mafioso in Las Vegas and then to deliver it to a mafioso in New Orleans.

Did he or did he not have a moral or ethical onligation to do the most basic attempt to verify (at least in part) the alleged daughter's story simply by verifying whether the man so identified was indeed a staff member of the politician?

YES OR NO.

Bill, you wrote:

AYERS DOESN'T CLAIM ANYBODY FACILITATED ANYTHING. HE NEVER EVEN USES THE WORD FACILITATE. HE MET A WOMEN WHO TOLD HIM A STORY AND REPEATS IT TO US, CERTAINLY NOT THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF HIS STORY, WHICH CENTERS AROUND JMWAVE.

Now come on Bill. You know I used the word "facilitate." That means "to make easier; to help bring about". Obviously the delivery of a suitcase of money to one of the assassins facilitated the assassination. So why do you bother wasting any time saying Ayers never used that term? It is an absolutely meaningless point, and you know it.

And how can you say that the identity of an obvious sponsor of the assassination (IF what Ayers writes is true) is "certainly not the most significant part of his story"? That is just an absurd statement--unless you, like I, know the story is as phoney as a four dollar bill. Moreover, you do not even know whether Ayers ever met a woman whose name may or may not be Pearl. He may have made the whole thing up. And although you claim not to be interested in the Pearl story, my expose of it scares you to death because if Ayers DID make up the Pearl story that calls into question everything else he has written.

You did not even comment that the assassination ruined any chances BG had of being elected president.

And yes, McDonald worked for BG. And McDonald writes that a man named Saul claimed involvement in theassassination and was the Mexico City mystery man. And Gerry Hemming identifies the MC MM as a man whose nickname was indeed Saul.

GEE TIM,

TAKE A DEEP BREATH.

SOMETIMES I THINK YOUR PURPOSE IS TO DISTRACT ME FROM MINE.

BK

[William Kelly]

"It is irresponsible and ethically improper for a professional non-fiction writer to deliberately disregard information which would provide the reader a truthfully balanced perspective of the issues at hand. A legitimate investigator and credible journalist should present all the accumulated evidence, identify sources and their obvious or possible biases, and the circumstances under which the information was obtained." - - Bradley E. Ayers

From The Critical Historian, G. Kinston Clark:

"The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms."

"...Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known is at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive."

"...It is the first task of an historian to review any narrative to find what is defective to find what links are missing altogether...where what is defective cannot be supplied by further reserach, it is an historians duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand..."

"...Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory...."

"...One of the objects of scholarships is to teach men and women when and how to be uncertain, how to be hesitant about much that is confidently asserted..."

"...Any action has its roots in the past. The forces of history will have prepared the circumstances in which the action took place and brought the actor into position...."

[Tim Gratz]

Well, Bill, if your "purpose" is to post as true information from a writer who may have no more credibility than Clifford Irving, then I think it is a meritorious purpose indeed to prevent the dissemination of information likely to be false.

You did NOT answer my question so here it is again:

Did Ayers or did he not have a moral or ethical onligation to do the most basic attempt to verify (at least in part) the alleged daughter's story simply by verifying whether the man so identified was indeed a staff member of the politician?

YES OR NO.

The answer should be obvious.

Just admit he HAD that obligation and, at least apparently, failed to live up to it.

I think your wesal room here is just about exhausted. No more distractions.

P.S. Those are indeed excellent quotations from Mr. Clark. I like this one in particular:

"...Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known is at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive."

Ayers accepts as "certainly true" statements by Pearl (assuming of course that such a woman even existed) that are facially dubious, without taking into account facts which are known (BG's staff members). Therefore, all of his statements are at best potentially misleading and possibly grossly and dangerously deceptive. Bear that in mind.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

TIM,

YOU'RE TALKING TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE ME ON THE STAND AND CAN BADGER ME.

EXCUSE ME, BUT I CAN'T ANSWER FOR BEA EXCEPT TO SAY THAT I THINK HE'S AN IMPORTANT WITNESS, ONE OF DOZENS OF WITNESSES WHO I HOPE WILL BE GIVEN A VENUE TO TESTIFY AND TELL WHAT THEY KNOW.

WITNESSES ARE SPECIAL PEOPLE AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH, WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THEM OR NOT.

I'M NOT A WITNESS, AND I'M NOT ON THE STAND AND I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

AND I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE QUESTIONING ANYONE'S MORAL OR ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS. JUDGE AND YE BE JUDGED.

BK

Well, Bill, if your "purpose" is to post as true information from a writer who may have no more credibility than Clifford Irving, then I think it is a meritorious purpose indeed to prevent the dissemination of information likely to be false.

You did NOT answer my question so here it is again:

Did Ayers or did he not have a moral or ethical onligation to do the most basic attempt to verify (at least in part) the alleged daughter's story simply by verifying whether the man so identified was indeed a staff member of the politician?

YES OR NO.

The answer should be obvious.

Just admit he HAD that obligation and, at least apparently, failed to live up to it.

I think your wesal room here is just about exhausted. No more distractions.

P.S. Those are indeed excellent quotations from Mr. Clark. I like this one in particular:

"...Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known is at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive."

Ayers accepts as "certainly true" statements by Pearl (assuming of course that such a woman even existed) that are facially dubious, without taking into account facts which are known (BG's staff members). Therefore, all of his statements are at best potentially misleading and possibly grossly and dangerously deceptive. Bear that in mind.

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I have the right to question you about Ayers' ethics in publishing Pearl's story (assuming such a person even exists outside of Ayer's fertile imagination) precisely because YOU vouched for him as an honest witness.

It is NOT "badgering" you to ask you whether Ayers had an obligation to make a few simple phone calls to verify whether Pearl's father worked for BG before he published her story in his book.

Besides, I have the right to "badger" being an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin.

So once again: should BEA have verified that Pearl's father worked for BG before publishing her story? The reason I can expect an answer is because readers of this Forum will judge your own ethics and responsibility by whether you answer the question. I think any disinterested person would believe that Ayers indeed had that obligation and that his failure to make the verification casts very strong doubt on his story--including whether Pearl even existed.

As I see it, the ONLY possible reasons he would not verify her story was because: (1) he made the whole darn thing up; or (2) if there was a Pearl, even he knew how far-fetched her story was and did not WANT to be told it was bogus.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill, I have the right to question you about Ayers' ethics in publishing Pearl's story (assuming such a person even exists outside of Ayer's fertile imagination) precisely because YOU vouched for him as an honest witness.

It is NOT "badgering" you to ask you whether Ayers had an obligation to make a few simple phone calls to verify whether Pearl's father worked for BG before he published her story in his book.

Besides, I have the right to "badger" being an alumnus of the University of Wisconsin.

So once again: should BEA have verified that Pearl's father worked for BG before publishing her story? The reason I can expect an answer is because readers of this Forum will judge your own ethics and responsibility by whether you answer the question. I think any disinterested person would believe that Ayers indeed had that obligation and that his failure to make the verification casts very strong doubt on his story--including whether Pearl even existed.

As I see it, the ONLY possible reasons he would not verify her story was because: (1) he made the whole darn thing up; or (2) if there was a Pearl, even he knew how far-fetched her story was and did not WANT to be told it was bogus.

NO TIM, BEA HAS NO OBLIGATION TO VERIFY ANYTHING.

HE'S NOT A JOURNALIST OR HISTORIAN, HE'S TELLING HIS STORY, THAT'S ALL.

CAST ALL THE DOUBTS YOU WANT.

NOW I'M STICKING MY THUMB IN MY MOUTH AND WAVING MY FINGERS AT YOU AND MAKING A FARTING SOUND LIKE A LITTLE KID WOULD TO MAKE FUN OF SOMEONE WHO REALLY DESERVES IT.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Well, fart all you want if it makes you happy, you old--ah, never mind!!

At least you finally got around to answering my question.

I think that says a lot that you believe Ayers could, morally and ethically, publish what Pearl said without making any effort whatsoever to verify it.

What do you care if he has wrongfully villified a patriotic American?

Of course that seems to be a standard for many in the assassination research community.

So tell me what you are going to do about Ayers if I write him and he refuses to identify the name of "Pearl's father". Are you still going to assert he is a truthful fellow?

[William Kelly]

Well, fart all you want if it makes you happy, you old--ah, never mind!!

At least you finally got around to answering my question.

I think that says a lot that you believe Ayers could, morally and ethically, publish what Pearl said without making any effort whatsoever to verify it.

What do you care if he has wrongfully villified a patriotic American?

Of course that seems to be a standard for many in the assassination research community.

So tell me what you are going to do about Ayers if I write him and he refuses to identify the name of "Pearl's father". Are you still going to assert he is a truthful fellow?

I'm not going to do anything. First off, Ayers didn't villify anyone, except in your dirty mind, and if Goldwater was up to shennagans you imagine then he isn't just a patriotic American.

Of course your assine reasoning is standard for many in the so-called "research community," that doesn't exist except in your mind and that of VB, whose judgement of my ethics and responsibility rests on my answers to your questions.

And if he ever gets to testify under oath in this case as I hope he someday will his truthfullness will be judged not by you but by the Congressional inquisitors or a grand jury.

BK

[William Kelly]

"It is irresponsible and ethically improper for a professional non-fiction writer to deliberately disregard information which would provide the reader a truthfully balanced perspective of the issues at hand. A legitimate investigator and credible journalist should present all the accumulated evidence, identify sources and their obvious or possible biases, and the circumstances under which the information was obtained." - - Bradley E. Ayers

From The Critical Historian, G. Kinston Clark:

"The distortion produced by bias are potentially present in any attempt to write history. Sometimes the danger is obvious and menacing, sometimes covert, coming from unexpected angles and in not easily detected forms."

"...Any interpretation which makes use of facts which can be shown to be false, or accepts as certainty true facts which are dubious, or does not take into account facts which are known is at best, potentially misleading, and possibly grossly, and dangerously deceptive."

"...It is the first task of an historian to review any narrative to find what is defective to find what links are missing altogether...where what is defective cannot be supplied by further reserach, it is an historians duty to draw attention to the fact so that men can know where they stand..."

"...Any historical conception which has not been adjusted to the most recent results will cease to be satisfactory...."

"...One of the objects of scholarships is to teach men and women when and how to be uncertain, how to be hesitant about much that is confidently asserted..."

"...Any action has its roots in the past. The forces of history will have prepared the circumstances in which the action took place and brought the actor into position...."

[Tim Gratz]

Considering the remote possibility that Ayers indeed had an informant but that for whatever reason he assigned her the name "Pearl", I e-mailed Mrs. Eisenhower Chapters 31 and 32 of Ayers' book and asked her to read them carefully to determine whether there was a person on BG's staff who met the description given by "Pearl", regardless of the name or sex of the man's children.

This afternoon I received the following e-mail from Mrs. Eisenhower:

There was no one who met the description of a man such as [Ayers] describes on the Goldwater staff ever.

----- Original Message -----

Proving conclusively, IMO, that either Ayers was himself conned or that he manufactured the entire incident. I do intend to write him to ask for his explanation. The fact that he never attempted to verify the story that alleged Pearl told him suggests to me there never was a Pearl. But we shall see what he says.

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

First off, Ayers didn't villify anyone, except in your dirty mind . . .

Here is what Ayers wrote: (from page seven of Chapter 31):

My conversations with Pearl led me to believe that Sen. Barry Goldwater was at the heart of a [the?] conspiracy to eliminate [the presidency of JFK].

Ayers accuses BG of being at the "heart of the conspiracy" to eliminate JFK, and Bill claims that is not a villification of BG?

Bizarre, to say the least.

[Tim Gratz]

To BK:

Bill, would you agree that if Ayers cannot come up with the name of the person who allegedly told him this tale (now I believe absolutely debunked by my recent correspondence with Mrs. Eisenhower) it is quite strong evidence that the whole thing is fiction on his part?

And understamd that if Ayers ever does testify in front of anyone the people who evaluate his testimony will no doubt find of interest his activity in publishing the story of "Pearl"--particularly if it can be established that Pearl never existed.

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

First off, Ayers didn't villify anyone, except in your dirty mind . . .

Here is what Ayers wrote: (from page seven of Chapter 31):

My conversations with Pearl led me to believe that Sen. Barry Goldwater was at the heart of a [the?] conspiracy to eliminate [the presidency of JFK].

Ayers accuses BG of being at the "heart of the conspiracy" to eliminate JFK, and Bill claims that is not a villification of BG?

Bizarre, to say the least.

TG, read that again. He's not alowed to believe something? That's what he believes and that's why he believes it. Your beliefs are even more bizzare.

I believe you're a political dirty trickster at the heart of an attempt to unfairly discredit an important witness.

BK

[William Kelly]

To BK:

Bill, would you agree that if Ayers cannot come up with the name of the person who allegedly told him this tale (now I believe absolutely debunked by my recent correspondence with Mrs. Eisenhower) it is quite strong evidence that the whole thing is fiction on his part?

How is BEA's story of "Pearl" "absolutel debunked" when you haven't done anything but talk to one person with emotional ties to BG?

Did Mrs. Eisenhower work in DC or Arizona? Did you ask her who in BG's Arizona was responsible for Mexican-American voters liason? Did you ask her about Morales?

Of course asking someone like Mrs. Eisenhower if if it true that Barry Goldwater was behind the assassination of President Kennedy would be like asking Jackie Kennedy if JFK screwed Marilyn Monroe.

And as for your threat:

"And understamd that if Ayers ever does testify in front of anyone the people who evaluate his testimony will no doubt find of interest his activity in publishing the story of "Pearl"--particularly if it can be established that Pearl never existed."

That "Pearl" is a fictional character and "never existed" are your mental determinations, not reality.

I take great satisfaction in the fact that testimony before a grand jury is secret and that the prosecutor asks the questions and that cross examination of witnesses by defense attornies is not permitted so any such imagined derogatory information would not be admitted.

And once we get the virtual grand jury going witness testimony will be limited to questions by the prosecutor and you will not be permitted to disrupt the proceedings like you did with this thread.

While you and others are apparently concerned with what went on with Goldwater and Morales, and it certainly deserves further investigation, I am looking for more witnesses to the JMWAVE operations - Shackley's secretary "Maggie" in particular, who was young enough to still be alive and in postion to know all the players.

You go your way and I'll go mine.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

Of course asking someone like Mrs. Eisenhower if if it true that Barry Goldwater was behind the assassination of President Kennedy would be like asking Jackie Kennedy if JFK screwed Marilyn Monroe.

Ridiculous, BK. Why would she lie about something--whether a man was on BG's staff--that can be EASILY verified or refuted?

As she wrote me, no one on BG's staff, either DC or AZ, fits the description in Ayer's book.

Are you SO naive you cannot add two and two to figure out why Ayers never mentions this man's name and never bothered to check whether he indeed worked on BG's staff?

Bill also wrote:

I take great satisfaction in the fact that testimony before a grand jury is secret and that the prosecutor asks the questions and that cross examination of witnesses by defense attornies is not permitted so any such imagined derogatory information would not be admitted.

Imagined? That Ayers made up the entire incident? I can assure you, BK, that if you every try to get Ayers to testify in a grand jury, I will do everything in my power to ensure the prosecutors asks him about this story, and if he lies about it under oath, to throw his sorry derriere into the appropriate slammer.

Your problem is you desperately need Ayers to prove other things on your agenda so you cannot stand to see his credibility evaporate before your very eyes.

I suspect you are in fact in communication with Ayers. Why don't you find out what substantiation if any he claims for this story.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Tim Gratz