Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Miles Scull

Shane O'Sullivan

Recommended Posts

Special Reports Last Updated: Oct 19th, 2010 - 23:02:09

RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Oct 18, 2010, 00:19

http://onlinejournal...icle_6464.shtml

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O'Sullivan, and Kenneth

Watson for feedback.

Okay, I read it and while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassintion witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be.

And while I think David Talbot and Jeff Morley could have refocused their joint inquiry and took it to where it should have gone - into the identify and background of the three men - especially Gordon Campbell, they too could have been victims of this scam.

You are absolutly right however, in noting that after coming up with Gordon Campbell's death certificate, and getting a former CIA officer to acknowldge that Campbell was not Shackley's deputy, as Brad Ayers thought, it is rather interesting to learn that he was a Contract Agent assigned to get Cubans into and out of Cuba, something the yatchtsman apparently did rather well.

But if Campbell died in 1962, who was the guy at JMWAVE using the same name, and operating as Shackley's deputy, and coordinating the actions of the anti-Castro Cuban terrorists that were going in and out of Cuba on missions?

Who was THAT Gordon Campbell? And why didn't David Talbot and Jeff Morely at least try to find out?

He was a yachtsman, a yachtsman with a beautiful wife who drank martinis, a yachtsman with a yacht, a big sailboat that was kept at the marina that Brad Ayers visited, where it could be learned the name of the yacht, and the name would then give up a paper trail of dock payments, insurance, previous and later ownership of the yacht, and tell us more about this mysterious Gordon Campbell, who wasn't the guy who died the previous year.

I think that the whole Ambassador Hotel deal should be dropped - ( unless someone wants to chase the Buliva Watch leads), but the roles of these men - Gordon Campbell, Joannides and Morales, both at JMWAVE and at Dealey Plaza, should be investigated much more thoroughly than what's been done so far.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill,

Thanks for taking the time. What I don't understand is that you REJECT the testimony of the "important JFK witnesses" who SUPPORT the identification of the three CIA officials at the Ambasador. But the only way they are "discredited" is IF THEY ARE WRONG. It might be helpful after all of the evidence I have laid out here that you explain why you hold this position: " . . . while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassination witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be." if these witnesses are credible, as you imply, then why are you discounting their identifications at the Ambassador? And I dare say we will never have more direct proof of the complicity of the CIA in an assassination than we have here. So why do you think "the whole Ambassador deal should be dropped"? I am more than puzzled, because your position appears to me to be incoherent from a logical point of view. Surely this kind of proof ought to be widely publicized, not "dropped" -- which would be a blunder!

Jim.

Special Reports Last Updated: Oct 19th, 2010 - 23:02:09

RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Oct 18, 2010, 00:19

http://onlinejournal...icle_6464.shtml

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O'Sullivan, and Kenneth

Watson for feedback.

Okay, I read it and while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassintion witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be.

And while I think David Talbot and Jeff Morley could have refocused their joint inquiry and took it to where it should have gone - into the identify and background of the three men - especially Gordon Campbell, they too could have been victims of this scam.

You are absolutly right however, in noting that after coming up with Gordon Campbell's death certificate, and getting a former CIA officer to acknowldge that Campbell was not Shackley's deputy, as Brad Ayers thought, it is rather interesting to learn that he was a Contract Agent assigned to get Cubans into and out of Cuba, something the yatchtsman apparently did rather well.

But if Campbell died in 1962, who was the guy at JMWAVE using the same name, and operating as Shackley's deputy, and coordinating the actions of the anti-Castro Cuban terrorists that were going in and out of Cuba on missions?

Who was THAT Gordon Campbell? And why didn't David Talbot and Jeff Morely at least try to find out?

He was a yachtsman, a yachtsman with a beautiful wife who drank martinis, a yachtsman with a yacht, a big sailboat that was kept at the marina that Brad Ayers visited, where it could be learned the name of the yacht, and the name would then give up a paper trail of dock payments, insurance, previous and later ownership of the yacht, and tell us more about this mysterious Gordon Campbell, who wasn't the guy who died the previous year.

I think that the whole Ambassador Hotel deal should be dropped - ( unless someone wants to chase the Buliva Watch leads), but the roles of these men - Gordon Campbell, Joannides and Morales, both at JMWAVE and at Dealey Plaza, should be investigated much more thoroughly than what's been done so far.

Bill Kelly

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

Thanks for taking the time. What I don't understand is that you REJECT the testimony of the "important JFK witnesses" who SUPPORT the identification of the three CIA officials at the Ambasador. But the only way they are "discredited" is IF THEY ARE WRONG. It might be helpful after all of the evidence I have laid out here that you explain why you hold this position: " . . . while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassination witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be." if these witnesses are credible, as you imply, then why are you discounting their identifications at the Ambassador? And I dare say we will never have more direct proof of the complicity of the CIA in an assassination than we have here. So why do you think "the whole Ambassador deal should be dropped"? I am more than puzzled, because your position appears to me to be incoherent from a logical point of view. Surely this kind of proof ought to be widely publicized, not "dropped" -- which would be a blunder!

Jim.

For one, as Tony Summers and others have pointed out, identificaitons made on the basis of photographs and such film aren't positive and often wrong. In addition, I'm not familiar with the evidence in the RFK or MLK assassinations as I think that one should concentrate on solving one homicide at a time. Though there is some evidence that overlaps and the three cases might be connected, the JFK case is closer to be resolved at this point in time. You are barking up the wrong tree. The right tree is JMWAVE and the branches that extend into Dealey Plaza.

Those who want to pursue the RFK assassination and the idea these men were there can certainly do so, but I think anyone seriously interested should concentrate on the three men - their jobs at JMWAVE, and the roles they played at Dealey Plaza, and the idea that they were also at the Ambassador is an unnecessary distraction from what is most certainly a key element in resolving the truth in the JFK assassination.

BK

Special Reports Last Updated: Oct 19th, 2010 - 23:02:09

RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Oct 18, 2010, 00:19

http://onlinejournal...icle_6464.shtml

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O'Sullivan, and Kenneth

Watson for feedback.

Okay, I read it and while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassintion witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be.

And while I think David Talbot and Jeff Morley could have refocused their joint inquiry and took it to where it should have gone - into the identify and background of the three men - especially Gordon Campbell, they too could have been victims of this scam.

You are absolutly right however, in noting that after coming up with Gordon Campbell's death certificate, and getting a former CIA officer to acknowldge that Campbell was not Shackley's deputy, as Brad Ayers thought, it is rather interesting to learn that he was a Contract Agent assigned to get Cubans into and out of Cuba, something the yatchtsman apparently did rather well.

But if Campbell died in 1962, who was the guy at JMWAVE using the same name, and operating as Shackley's deputy, and coordinating the actions of the anti-Castro Cuban terrorists that were going in and out of Cuba on missions?

Who was THAT Gordon Campbell? And why didn't David Talbot and Jeff Morely at least try to find out?

He was a yachtsman, a yachtsman with a beautiful wife who drank martinis, a yachtsman with a yacht, a big sailboat that was kept at the marina that Brad Ayers visited, where it could be learned the name of the yacht, and the name would then give up a paper trail of dock payments, insurance, previous and later ownership of the yacht, and tell us more about this mysterious Gordon Campbell, who wasn't the guy who died the previous year.

I think that the whole Ambassador Hotel deal should be dropped - ( unless someone wants to chase the Buliva Watch leads), but the roles of these men - Gordon Campbell, Joannides and Morales, both at JMWAVE and at Dealey Plaza, should be investigated much more thoroughly than what's been done so far.

Bill Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Bill tries to defend an irresponsible position with weak arguments that I have already addressed. Since he claims to have read my study, he knows that, in offering a critique of DiEugenio's observations, I explained why Summer's comments do not apply in this case. We are not talking about still photographs but videotape that shows them walking, talking, and (more importantly) interacting. As for solving one crime before moving on to another, that is about as silly a remark as I can imagine. Not only are different investigators capable of pursuing different crimes, but some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Two persons can investigate one crime apiece at the same time, while one person can study two crimes at the same time -- especially when they are linked.

Bill, I think, has not appreciated the force of the argument that I have elaborated here, which suggests I should outline its logical structure. While O'Sullivan is convinced that Campbell is "Roman", he only took the word of the Roman family that Joannides was "Owens". And the only case for Morales being a Bulova executive is that he was observed (by Rabern) interacting with Campbell and Cambell was observed (in footage) also interacting with Joannides. Since members of the Roman family (on the assumption that it was real) were equivocal about the identification, I think Shane has gone beyond the evidence in the strength of his belief.

But the important measure of the strength of the evidence is comparing the hypotheses that they were the CIA officials we are discussing or that they were instead Bulova Watch executives. What is the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, then they would look like Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador?

Presumably, the answer to that is obvious: the probability that, if they were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, those effects of that cause would be very high, which in turn means that the likelihood of that cause (hypothesis), given those effects (as evidence) is very high. If, instead, we are talking about Bulova Watch executives, what is the probability that they would look like Morales, Joannieds, and Campbell, be interacting together and with police, be observing witnesses speaking with reporters, and be observed (by Rabern) having extensive contact with members of the Los Angeles Police Department over an extended period of time prior to the assassination at the Ambassador? That probability has to be very low.

The likelihood of an hypothesis h, given evidence e, is equal to the probability of e on the assumption that h is true. So if h1 is that they are these CIA officials and h2 is that they are Bulova Watch executives as the alternative -- which is the only alternative explanation that has surfaced -- then, since one hypothesis is preferable to another when it has a higher likelihood, clearly h1 is preferable to h2, which means that it provides a better explanation for the available evidence. When the evidence has, as it were, "settled down" and points in the same direction, the preferable hypothesis is also acceptable (in the tentative and fallible fashion of science), which appears to be the case here, since the more we examine the evidence, the stronger support for h1 becomes and the weaker for h2. h1, absent new evidence or alternative hypotheses, is thus acceptable.

Because O'Sullivan insists that Campbell is "Roman", even though, in my opinion, he does not look that much like "Roman", if we accept that Brad is most unlikely to be wrong in identifying the man who served as his case officer at JM/WAVE from May 1963 to December 1964 -- and for whom we have independent testimony (from Clines and from Rabern) that he did not die in 1962 -- then logic dictates that Campbell and Roman are one and the same. Thus, since we have already established, by the weight of the available evidence, that we are dealing with Morales, Joannides, and Campbell, the additional conclusion follows (if we assume O'Sullivan is right) that at least one of the was also a Bulova Watch executive, which, all things considered, would not be entirely surprising. That thus appears to be the situation we are in from the point of view of logic and evidence.

Bill,

Thanks for taking the time. What I don't understand is that you REJECT the testimony of the "important JFK witnesses" who SUPPORT the identification of the three CIA officials at the Ambasador. But the only way they are "discredited" is IF THEY ARE WRONG. It might be helpful after all of the evidence I have laid out here that you explain why you hold this position: " . . . while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassination witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be." if these witnesses are credible, as you imply, then why are you discounting their identifications at the Ambassador? And I dare say we will never have more direct proof of the complicity of the CIA in an assassination than we have here. So why do you think "the whole Ambassador deal should be dropped"? I am more than puzzled, because your position appears to me to be incoherent from a logical point of view. Surely this kind of proof ought to be widely publicized, not "dropped" -- which would be a blunder!

Jim.

For one, as Tony Summers and others have pointed out, identificaitons made on the basis of photographs and such film aren't positive and often wrong. In addition, I'm not familiar with the evidence in the RFK or MLK assassinations as I think that one should concentrate on solving one homicide at a time. Though there is some evidence that overlaps and the three cases might be connected, the JFK case is closer to be resolved at this point in time. You are barking up the wrong tree. The right tree is JMWAVE and the branches that extend into Dealey Plaza.

Those who want to pursue the RFK assassination and the idea these men were there can certainly do so, but I think anyone seriously interested should concentrate on the three men - their jobs at JMWAVE, and the roles they played at Dealey Plaza, and the idea that they were also at the Ambassador is an unnecessary distraction from what is most certainly a key element in resolving the truth in the JFK assassination.

BK

Special Reports Last Updated: Oct 19th, 2010 - 23:02:09

RFK: Outing the CIA at the Ambassador*

By Jim Fetzer

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Oct 18, 2010, 00:19

http://onlinejournal...icle_6464.shtml

* Special thanks to Brad Ayers, Shane O'Sullivan, and Kenneth

Watson for feedback.

Okay, I read it and while I don't agree that the three men at the Ambassador are the three CIA officers, I do think this whole thing is a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassintion witnesses - including Wayne Smith, who knew both Morales and David Atlee Phillips when he worked at the US Embassy in Havana during the Castro revolution, Brad Ayers - US Army Ranger assigned to train anti-Castro Cubans in small boat tactics and operations at JMWAVE in the summer and fall of 1963, and Ed Lopez and Dan H., two HSCA lawyers who actually tried to get to the truth despite the objections of the beauracracy and powers that be.

And while I think David Talbot and Jeff Morley could have refocused their joint inquiry and took it to where it should have gone - into the identify and background of the three men - especially Gordon Campbell, they too could have been victims of this scam.

You are absolutly right however, in noting that after coming up with Gordon Campbell's death certificate, and getting a former CIA officer to acknowldge that Campbell was not Shackley's deputy, as Brad Ayers thought, it is rather interesting to learn that he was a Contract Agent assigned to get Cubans into and out of Cuba, something the yatchtsman apparently did rather well.

But if Campbell died in 1962, who was the guy at JMWAVE using the same name, and operating as Shackley's deputy, and coordinating the actions of the anti-Castro Cuban terrorists that were going in and out of Cuba on missions?

Who was THAT Gordon Campbell? And why didn't David Talbot and Jeff Morely at least try to find out?

He was a yachtsman, a yachtsman with a beautiful wife who drank martinis, a yachtsman with a yacht, a big sailboat that was kept at the marina that Brad Ayers visited, where it could be learned the name of the yacht, and the name would then give up a paper trail of dock payments, insurance, previous and later ownership of the yacht, and tell us more about this mysterious Gordon Campbell, who wasn't the guy who died the previous year.

I think that the whole Ambassador Hotel deal should be dropped - ( unless someone wants to chase the Buliva Watch leads), but the roles of these men - Gordon Campbell, Joannides and Morales, both at JMWAVE and at Dealey Plaza, should be investigated much more thoroughly than what's been done so far.

Bill Kelly

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay,

So you are convinced that the three men in the video are Joannides, Morales and Campbell.

What are you going to do about it other than try to convince us that its them?

The other guys with other evidence in the JFK assassination, who I met at the Wecht Symposium in Pittsburgh, are trying to get their acoustics and other evidence before a grand jury and wanted to make a serious presentation to the LA DA and other prosecutors.

If you are convinced that these guys had something to do with the RFK assassination, then hey, we already have strong evidence that they also had something to do with what happened at Dealey Plaza.

You criticize Talbot and Morley, as I do, for not following through on their investigation, and giving up when they came across a death certificate for Cambpell dated 1962, when we know that somebody named Gordon Campbell worked with Shackly and Ayers at JMWAVE in 1963, a person with a beautiful wife who drank martinis and an experienced yachtsman who kept his big sailboat at the Miami marina, a boat that could yield lots of clues if someone would determine its name and get its ownership and insurance papers.

So what are you going to do with what you now believe, other than to badger us about it?

Bill Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

You have been supportive in the past but I take exception to the way you discuss the alleged CIA guys at the Ambassador in this and other threads. You admit you know little about the RFK assassination. And it's clear to me from your postings that despite your forthright views on this topic, you haven't bothered to watch my film or read my book. The book contains two chapters which lay out my whole Morales/Campbell/Joannides investigation in meticulous chronological detail, so researchers like you, Jim DiEugenio or Jim Fetzer can see my whole process.

DiEugenio and Fetzer, to their credit, read the book before commenting. You skipped the book but continually resuscitate the Gordon Campbell thread and call the Ambassador IDs a "scam" and "a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassination witnesses."

Would you care to tell me who is behind this "scam?" Me? Bradley Ayers? Wayne Smith? Talbot and Morley? The New Yorker? If you read the chapters in my book, you'd realise such claims are both ludicrous and irresponsible, given your ignorance of the RFK case and my work in this area.

Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill,

You have been supportive in the past but I take exception to the way you discuss the alleged CIA guys at the Ambassador in this and other threads. You admit you know little about the RFK assassination. And it's clear to me from your postings that despite your forthright views on this topic, you haven't bothered to watch my film or read my book. The book contains two chapters which lay out my whole Morales/Campbell/Joannides investigation in meticulous chronological detail, so researchers like you, Jim DiEugenio or Jim Fetzer can see my whole process.

DiEugenio and Fetzer, to their credit, read the book before commenting. You skipped the book but continually resuscitate the Gordon Campbell thread and call the Ambassador IDs a "scam" and "a scheme to discredit a number of important JFK assassination witnesses."

Would you care to tell me who is behind this "scam?" Me? Bradley Ayers? Wayne Smith? Talbot and Morley? The New Yorker? If you read the chapters in my book, you'd realise such claims are both ludicrous and irresponsible, given your ignorance of the RFK case and my work in this area.

Shane

Okay Shane, I'll read your book.

I don't know who is behind the scam, but I do know you can't take a videotape to court and tell them who you think is in the pictures.

And if a court of law won't even look at the videos to make a determination why should we?

And even if it is Morales, Joannides and Campbell, what does that mean again?

That the JMWAVE crew, who we suspect were behind what happened at Dealey Plaza, were also at the Ambassador?

Well, it would be nice if we could nail down their role at Dealey Plaza before jumping ahead to other political assassinations, something that can and should be done.

Since I am out of the loop on this, maybe you can answer the question of why others like Talbot and Morley, who I respect, backed out of this whole thing when they could have gotten to the bottom of it?

And as someone who knows whats in your book since you wrote it, what is the result of the inquiry into the Gordon Campbell who Brad Ayers knew at JMWAVE, the guy who had the wife who drank martinis and had a yacht that he parked at the marina that Ayers visited? Was he Canadian? Did he really die in 1962? And if so, who was the Gordon Campbell Ayers knew? And is it true that he wasn't Shackley's deputy, but a contract agent whose responsibilities were getting people into and out of Cuba, just as Ayers described him? And who else at JMWAVE who are still alive were questioned - like Shackley's secretary "Maggie"? She was young then and probably still alive and could tell us everything we need to know about Gordon Campbell. And what about Porter Goss, who was also there and knew all those guys, and is still alive?

I'm willing to be convinced, but not on the basis of Professor Fetzer's analysis that depends on the visual interpretation of a video and witnesses, twenty or more years removed, who are extremely valuable witnesses on the JFK case, who are suddenly discredited if all of this is off base, as it seems to be.

Why have the leads that can be explored - the yacht and secretary to name two, not been explored?

I'm all for a logical and reasonable exploitation of the evidence and witnesses, but I'm not going to buy the idea that the best evidence in conspiracy in the RFK hit is the videotape of three JMWAVE officers at the Ambassador, when their presence at Dealey Plaza is the real issue that makes them worth investigating in the first place. If they were involved in the Dealey Plaza operation, then let's prove that and nail them to the wall before going off on a while goose chase at the Ambassador.

Bill Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, please read the book. You continue to speak about wild goose chases and scams without having read what was developed two years ago on these guys.

In the book, you'll see from how events unfolded, that there was no scam, so please show some respect for myself and Bradley Ayers and stop referring to it that way. I don't question the sincerity of Talbot and Morley in presenting my evidence in December 2006 to David Remnick at the New Yorker and persuading him to commission a further investigation. So I didn't manufacture a scam, neither did they, nor did the witnesses themselves.

Both Talbot and I felt at the time that we were onto something but the New Yorker investigation produced negative results that led Talbot and Morley into a cul-de-sac. They drew different conclusions to Jim Fetzer but also made some blunders (the Gordon Campbell birth certificate having little to do with the man Ayers knew etc). But there was no scam, as far as I can see - it was an honest attempt to investigate all this as thoroughly as possible, at the risk of being proved wrong, in search of the truth in the case. From the information developed, different researchers will draw their own subjective conclusions.

I agree with you, the conflicting evidence on the Ambassador IDs would not stand up in court, so I have advised those working on reopening the RFK case to steer clear of it until we have more persuasive information. I spent two years researching that aspect of the case, Morley and Talbot spent six weeks travelling round the country, what have you done? Why don't you trace the yacht or find Shackley's secretary "Maggie" or call Porter Goss? If Morley and Talbot left leads unchecked, why don't you follow them up?

I took this story as far as I could, I would be delighted to see yourself or Jim Fetzer add some new research to the mix. But in the two and a half years since my book was completed, nothing new has been done in this area. Nothing.

The order in which we solve political assassinations is irrelevant. With Bill Pepper's involvement as Sirhan's attorney, the RFK case is the most active at the moment and the convicted assassin is still alive.

You say: "And if a court of law won't even look at the videos to make a determination why should we?" Well, I thought the point of a research forum was developing research to the point where it can be of value in a court of law and supporting each other in that process. We have so much new information about Morales, Joannides and Campbell as a result of the Ambassador investigations than we did before. It's in the book.

While I don't agree with Jim Fetzer's position on the Ambassador investigations, he's read the available material and is entitled to his view. Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith stand by their identifications and I stand by what I said in my book. If you want to contribute, please go into the field and follow up the leads you think are outstanding, as the rest of us have done. If you don't wish to contribute, please stop throwing around ill-informed accusations until you've read the available material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, please read the book. You continue to speak about wild goose chases and scams without having read what was developed two years ago on these guys.

In the book, you'll see from how events unfolded, that there was no scam, so please show some respect for myself and Bradley Ayers and stop referring to it that way. I don't question the sincerity of Talbot and Morley in presenting my evidence in December 2006 to David Remnick at the New Yorker and persuading him to commission a further investigation. So I didn't manufacture a scam, neither did they, nor did the witnesses themselves.

Both Talbot and I felt at the time that we were onto something but the New Yorker investigation produced negative results that led Talbot and Morley into a cul-de-sac. They drew different conclusions to Jim Fetzer but also made some blunders (the Gordon Campbell birth certificate having little to do with the man Ayers knew etc). But there was no scam, as far as I can see - it was an honest attempt to investigate all this as thoroughly as possible, at the risk of being proved wrong, in search of the truth in the case. From the information developed, different researchers will draw their own subjective conclusions.

I agree with you, the conflicting evidence on the Ambassador IDs would not stand up in court, so I have advised those working on reopening the RFK case to steer clear of it until we have more persuasive information. I spent two years researching that aspect of the case, Morley and Talbot spent six weeks travelling round the country, what have you done? Why don't you trace the yacht or find Shackley's secretary "Maggie" or call Porter Goss? If Morley and Talbot left leads unchecked, why don't you follow them up?

I took this story as far as I could, I would be delighted to see yourself or Jim Fetzer add some new research to the mix. But in the two and a half years since my book was completed, nothing new has been done in this area. Nothing.

The order in which we solve political assassinations is irrelevant. With Bill Pepper's involvement as Sirhan's attorney, the RFK case is the most active at the moment and the convicted assassin is still alive.

You say: "And if a court of law won't even look at the videos to make a determination why should we?" Well, I thought the point of a research forum was developing research to the point where it can be of value in a court of law and supporting each other in that process. We have so much new information about Morales, Joannides and Campbell as a result of the Ambassador investigations than we did before. It's in the book.

While I don't agree with Jim Fetzer's position on the Ambassador investigations, he's read the available material and is entitled to his view. Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith stand by their identifications and I stand by what I said in my book. If you want to contribute, please go into the field and follow up the leads you think are outstanding, as the rest of us have done. If you don't wish to contribute, please stop throwing around ill-informed accusations until you've read the available material.

Okay Shane,

Let me read the book and I'll get back to you.

I think both Brad Ayers and Wayne Smith, both of whom I have talked wih at length, are extremely important JFK witnesses.

If they were discredited by this whole Ambassador deal, then it was a scam even if it wasn't intended to be.

If Morely and Talbot can't dig up anything in a few weeks with a budget and ability to go anywhere, what can I do?

I'll talk to Porter Goss. I'll try to find "Maggie."

Is "Maggie" mentioned in Shackley's bio? Blond Ghost?

Another guy that Ayers mentions is Sparks, the CIA Cowboy who was at Bay of Pigs. He too could still be alive.

And I believe Campbell's boat is a possible lead if we can find out what the name of it.

Then there's James H. Bready, the Baltimore Sun reporter who may still be alive, who mentioned in the one article that he served with Maj. Gordon Sutherland Campbell during WWII in XXII Corps.

I've already emailed Bready with no response but will try again.

BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Let me emphasize that I admire Shane O'Sullivan for his dedication to unraveling the truth about the death of Bobby Kennedy. The only exception that I would take to his otherwise valuable remarks is the claim that "nothing" has taken place in relation to RFK research since his book and DVD. Understanding a case involves applying reason to the evidence. If what I have produced provides a more coherent analysis of the evidence, then that is a considerable advance! It is most certainly not "nothing"! So if anyone wants to tackle my argument, as it is laid out in my article and summarized above, then let them do so. Because unless my premises are false or my reasoning is faulty, my conclusion -- that the three men at the Ambassaor were Morales, Joannides, and Campbell -- provides the best supported explanation of the evidence and ought to be accepted (albeit in the tentative and fallible fashion of science). If Bill Kelly or anyone else wants to challenge my arguments, then by all means do so by identifying the premises I have taken to be true when they are actually false or the flawed reasoning I employed in deriving my conclusion. I find it beyond belief when someone like Bill Kelly simply takes for granted that "he knows better" when he hasn't even bothered to study the evidence, a practice I have found to be all-too-common on this forum. If we are unwilling to acknowledge advances when they are made, then no "advances" will ever be made! And establishing the truth about complicated cases like this is a different -- and prior question -- to what can be done about it, once the truth is known. Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith are not going to change their minds about the identity of those they knew and observed in video footage from the Ambassador. The very idea that this could be a plot to discredit them as JFK witnesses is simply absurd. Moreover, if their testimony had that effect, it would have nothing to do with me or Shane or anyone else who is trying to establish who was responsible for Bobby's death. Their testimony has long been public and well-known. Mediocre and thoughtless reflections about important developments in sorting things out does not advance the cause of truth and justice for RFK or for JFK! If forums like this one are going to make any difference, then we have to do much better than that.

Bill, please read the book. You continue to speak about wild goose chases and scams without having read what was developed two years ago on these guys.

In the book, you'll see from how events unfolded, that there was no scam, so please show some respect for myself and Bradley Ayers and stop referring to it that way. I don't question the sincerity of Talbot and Morley in presenting my evidence in December 2006 to David Remnick at the New Yorker and persuading him to commission a further investigation. So I didn't manufacture a scam, neither did they, nor did the witnesses themselves.

Both Talbot and I felt at the time that we were onto something but the New Yorker investigation produced negative results that led Talbot and Morley into a cul-de-sac. They drew different conclusions to Jim Fetzer but also made some blunders (the Gordon Campbell birth certificate having little to do with the man Ayers knew etc). But there was no scam, as far as I can see - it was an honest attempt to investigate all this as thoroughly as possible, at the risk of being proved wrong, in search of the truth in the case. From the information developed, different researchers will draw their own subjective conclusions.

I agree with you, the conflicting evidence on the Ambassador IDs would not stand up in court, so I have advised those working on reopening the RFK case to steer clear of it until we have more persuasive information. I spent two years researching that aspect of the case, Morley and Talbot spent six weeks travelling round the country, what have you done? Why don't you trace the yacht or find Shackley's secretary "Maggie" or call Porter Goss? If Morley and Talbot left leads unchecked, why don't you follow them up?

I took this story as far as I could, I would be delighted to see yourself or Jim Fetzer add some new research to the mix. But in the two and a half years since my book was completed, nothing new has been done in this area. Nothing.

The order in which we solve political assassinations is irrelevant. With Bill Pepper's involvement as Sirhan's attorney, the RFK case is the most active at the moment and the convicted assassin is still alive.

You say: "And if a court of law won't even look at the videos to make a determination why should we?" Well, I thought the point of a research forum was developing research to the point where it can be of value in a court of law and supporting each other in that process. We have so much new information about Morales, Joannides and Campbell as a result of the Ambassador investigations than we did before. It's in the book.

While I don't agree with Jim Fetzer's position on the Ambassador investigations, he's read the available material and is entitled to his view. Bradley Ayers and Wayne Smith stand by their identifications and I stand by what I said in my book. If you want to contribute, please go into the field and follow up the leads you think are outstanding, as the rest of us have done. If you don't wish to contribute, please stop throwing around ill-informed accusations until you've read the available material.

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, Bill. I know it's difficult without the resources of Talbot and Morley but do what you can and let me know what you turn up. I can find no mention of "Maggie" in "Blond Ghost" but you could try Shackley's wife Hazel, a former CIA secretary he met and married in Berlin. Hazel Shackley is based in Pensacola, FL, I believe.

Jim, let me clarify what I meant by "nothing": I meant no new primary research, no new witnesses, no new IDs (positive, negative or in-between). I appreciate your new analysis of the existing material but I believe a breakthrough will only come through new evidence.

Shane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Shane, My opinion is that we have enough evidence. The problem has been to analyze it rigorously, which is what I have attempted to do in my article and contributions here in posts, such as #49. As I see it, there are more than enough "dots", in no small measure thanks to you. The problem thus becomes to figure out how they are all connected, which is what I have been working on. There are good reasons why you should be better at producing films and I (after 35 years offering college courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning) should be better at logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning. We make different contributions. Best, Jim

Okay, Bill. I know it's difficult without the resources of Talbot and Morley but do what you can and let me know what you turn up. I can find no mention of "Maggie" in "Blond Ghost" but you could try Shackley's wife Hazel, a former CIA secretary he met and married in Berlin. Hazel Shackley is based in Pensacola, FL, I believe.

Jim, let me clarify what I meant by "nothing": I meant no new primary research, no new witnesses, no new IDs (positive, negative or in-between). I appreciate your new analysis of the existing material but I believe a breakthrough will only come through new evidence.

Shane

Edited by James H. Fetzer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9bcyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a-kFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4128%2C1776717

The Miami News - Sep 21, 1962 page 5A

Greater Miami Deaths

GSCampbellDeathNotice092162.jpg

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSmcid=47393402&GRid=81504750&df=7&

And....

...Seems to be the real deal... granddaughter of Lenore Hoxie, who was the sister of Gertrude Hoxie Williams Campbell, wife of Gordon S. Campberll. :

..........

"Gordon Campbell was my great uncle. He could not have been at the Ambassador Hotel on that tragic evening in 1968 as he died of a heart attack on September 19th, 1962. Even if one were to disregard the obvious chronological inconsistency, the man depicted in the photograph at The Ambassador bears very little resemblance to Gordon Campbell. Mr. Campbell worked for the CIA as a mariner in Florida; he was the captain of a vessel used for trips to Cuba. He was also a wonderfully gracious man of unwavering character whose passing was deeply mourned by my great-aunt Gertrude, her children, and our entire family. It would mean a great deal to me if next time, before making public allegations that create widespread, false speculation about the actions of a person who is no longer with us, that you do the proper due diligence and are aware that the person had a family who loved and remembers him. "

.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×