Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Tim Gratz]

Biil, I think it was RCD who said or implied I might be lying about what Mrs Eisenhower told and wrote me.

As it now stands, either Mrs. Eisenhower lied (very doubtful IMO), Pearl lied, or Ayers did. The latter remains IMO a very serious possibility.

You cannot fault my morals or ethics merely because I am exploring whether Ayers made up the entire Pearl story.

You wrote:

BRAD AYERS IS A DECORATED US RANGER AND VETERAN AND FORMER TRAINER OF ANTI-CASTRO COMMANDOS AT JMWAVE {I do not dispute that] WHOSE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS CONFIRM THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JMWAVE MARITIME OPERATIONS AND WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA. [but Bill his first-hand accounts cannot be believed absent independent verification if it turns out who made up the Pearl story. If he did, who knows what else he made up? He can only be considered a "reliable source" if he did NOT manufacture the Pearl story.]

[Miles Scull]

Biil, I think it was RCD who said or implied I might be lying about what Mrs Eisenhower told and wrote me.

As it now stands, either Mrs. Eisenhower lied (very doubtful IMO), Pearl lied, or Ayers did. The latter remains IMO a very serious possibility.

You cannot fault my morals or ethics merely because I am exploring whether Ayers made up the entire Pearl story.

You wrote:

BRAD AYERS IS A DECORATED US RANGER AND VETERAN AND FORMER TRAINER OF ANTI-CASTRO COMMANDOS AT JMWAVE {I do not dispute that] WHOSE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS CONFIRM THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JMWAVE MARITIME OPERATIONS AND WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA. [but Bill his first-hand accounts cannot be believed absent independent verification if it turns out who made up the Pearl story. If he did, who knows what else he made up? He can only be considered a "reliable source" if he did NOT manufacture the Pearl story.]

Tim,

The problem is that Mrs. Eisenhower says that there was no one such as Pearl or anyone related to Pearl connected to Goldwater in anyway.

Is that correct?

Here's a question:

Other than that, is there anything at all which might cause you or a thinking person to doubt Ayers' Pearl story?

[William Kelly]

ABOARD THE REX ON A MISSION TO CUBA

Bradley E. Ayers – The Zenith Secret, p. 27-

…Despite Operation's [Morales] objections, Ted Shackley accepted my recommendations almost to the letter. Ted informed me that I was to be permanently assigned to the training branch to set up and supervise a new program. Two weeks later I was on a V-20, speeding through the darkness, about to intercept a large mother ship lying at anchor some several miles off Islamorada. Our Cuban operator expertly turned the craft and came about on the lee side, then maneuvered it beneath the overhanging hull of the looming vessel. We were surrounded by blackness. Silently, a line was thrown from the deck above us and cargo net was dropped over the side. We clambered up and over the cold, slippery rail of the Rex, a converted Navy World War II patrol craft. 6

As the V-20 sped back toward the Florida coast, the full implications struck me. We were on our way to Cuba.

The roar of the departing V-20 was quickly swallowed by the sounds of the sea and the noise of the larger ship's diesels as they throbbed to life. I looked back for a moment. The lights of Miami glowed to the north. South, towards the Straights of Florida and the Communist island, there was only dark, open sea. To the east I could see Alligator Reef and the slowly moving lights of a large tanker in the shipping lanes of the Gulf Stream, miles from our position. It seemed unreal, as if I were standing on the edge of the world….

….There's been a week of briefings: meetings with the case office and his Cuban-American go-between, Marcus: more briefings and meetings. We waited. The sea, the weather, the moon phase all had to be right, and even more important, the Special Group in Washington had to okay the mission. That approval had come through only this morning….The team was less highly trained than their case officer had let me to believe. They were fairly typical of the other commando teams. Those six members were what was left of the very first units the CIA supported after the Bay of Pigs. The group had numbered 20 to 30 men, but some had been killed or captured in earlier operations, had quit in frustration, or were dismissed for security reasons. Rip Robertson had given them their earlier training, and when the larger group disbanded, the six men were passed off to a new case officer.

Marcus was assigned to supervise the six men and are for their immediate needs; he had worked with the group for nearly a year and claimed to have great confidence in it…

The men had been housed in a comfortable safehouse on the outskirts of Coconut Grove in south Miami. They'd been living there, in almost total inactivity since their last mission….

I was watching off the port bow, and soon the blink of the signal light from the smaller sister ship – the decoy vessel that would accompany us to Cuba – dotted the blackness….Radios would be used only in the event of an emergency….

This mission was relatively simple and, if discovered, theoretically untraceable. The minesweeper, owned and registered as a Costa Rican commercial salvage vessel, had sailed to the rendezvous point from its home port in Central America…It was to carry the team to the drop-off point three miles off Cuba, where the commandos would debark and make their way ashore in two rubber rafts with silent outboard engines. The team was to bury four specially designed cache containers at a specific point on the coastline. Later, agents already in Cuba would recover the cache. The exile volunteers would lie in hiding until the following night. At midnight they would return to the mother ship in the same manner.

While the team was ashore, our vessel would put out to sea and a conduct sea bottom survey in international waters. The smaller decoy vessel – a converted oil rig patrol craft – would remain in close proximity. In the event that the operation was discovered, the faster steel-hulled vessel would attempt to distract the Cuban patrol boats and draw them away from the mother ship long enough for the team to escape.

The decoy vessel, U.S. registered and officially operated by a phony Delaware CIA petroleum corporation, was suppose to be doing offshore oil research and mapping….

After checking on the team members – they were now asleep – Marcus took me down to the galley and introduced me to Captain Luis and his first mate, Enrique. The captain, a stocky, distinguished looking man in his late 40s, wore a gleaming .38 caliber revolver holstered on his belt. Enrique was thin and rangy, with the look of the sea about him; the deep lines etched in his leathery, tanned skin told of a lifetime of sailing.

Captain Luis spoke excellent English, and since he had been on many similar missions, I was most interested to share his firsthand knowledge of Castro's defenses. For the next hour we sipped bitter Cuban coffee as he explained in great detail the modus operandi of the Komar-class coastal patrol boats supplied to the Cubans by the Russians. I was amazed to find that he even knew the names of the Cuban commanders and crew members of some of the fast, heavily armed Soviet crafts. His information on the frequently changing routes and schedules of the coastal patrols was less than 24 hours old. He also knew the exact location of the powerful coastal searchlight and gun placements in the area the team would be infiltrating……

It was well past midnight when I went below to my small, shared cabin in the forward part of the ship and in minutes I was asleep. Awakened to the same monotonous engine throb that had put me to sleep I realized we were rapidly approaching Cuba, and tonight we would launch the operation………

Edited October 27, 2007 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

A RIDE ON THE REX - (Part II) - BEA - from The Zenith Secret (p. 30-31)

I joined Captain Luis on the bridge (of the Rex), and for nearly an hour he explained the mechanics of the reclaimed World War II vessel. He showed me the elaborate electronic navigation gear and communications equipment that had been installed by the CIA. I was startled to learn that, despite all the equipment, the captain was navigating by dead reckoning alone, with only an occassional crosscheck by LORAN (a worldwide, long-range commercial air-sea navigation system). Except for the usual multilingual banter coming over the standard commercial ship-to-shore radio, no other equipment was on. I asked Captain Luis how the station contacted him to give last minute information or instructions and I learned that the special high-frequency radio was turned on only for limited periods at specific intervals. The captain showed me the 40mm deck cannons mounted fore and aft and two .50 caliber machine guns set amidship. These weapons, and the small arms available to the eight-man crew, were the ship's only defenses. All of the heavy guns and ammunition were encased in innocent looking plywood boxes that had quick release devises to permit easy access. With such limited armamenmts, I hoped we wouldn't find ourselves in a situation wher the boat would have to defend itself; it would be no match for the well armed, faster Russian boats. The two six man rubber rafts to be used by the team were covered by a heavy tarpaulin on the lower deck near the stern of the ship.

Below the main deck, the peeling bulkheads were wet with condensation and the pipes were leaking. Captain Luis and I walked through the ship and he introduced me to each of the crewmen. Their eyes flashing, and their skin glistening with sweat, they went about their tasks with pride and enthusiasm. When the captain had finished showing me aorund, I concluded that the Rex was a noisey, leaking relic, continually in need of repari, but otherwise seaworthy.

After the noon meal, the team went back to their cabin to rest; they would remain there until supper, when we would gather for a final briefing. In the midafternoon Captain Luis calculated our postition: we were on schedule, some where between Cuba and the Dry Tortugas. By dusk we would reach the drop point.

I was alert with excitment as a I went below to the galley to join the others for supper and te final briefing. It had been a very warm day and the air below deck was unmoving and rancid. Captain Luis, as was his practice, began the meal with a prayer, then opened a bottle of Portuguse wine and fille each man's small tin cup. I could only pick at my food, but the Cubans attacked the eavily oiled meaal with gusto. Afterward, the cook placed blackout covers over the small windows and the briefing began. We were now about 12 miles off Bahia Honda, on Cuba's northwest coast, and traveling southwesterly at about five knots.

Instruments and sampling probes had been dropped overboard and were being trailed behind the ship, in accordance with our cover role. The ship would remain on its present course and speed until it reached the drop off point, near the village of Dimas, southwest of teh Cayou Jutias beacon, at midnight. The vessel would be approximately three miles off the Cuban coast at a time when the two Cuban patrol boats covering the area would be furhest away. As the minesweeper continued to move slowly, the team would launch the rafts, get aboard, stat the silent engines, and release their line to the mother ship. All of this had to be done in complete blackout and as quietly as possible.

There would be no turning back, even in the event of discovery, because once the team released the tow line, the mother ship would continue under way to clear the area. Using a compass and visual landmarks on the coast, the team would make its way across the shallow coastal shelf to their landing point.

Hopefully, the silent engines would work, but if they failed, the men would paddle the rubber rafts. Meanwhile, the smaller decoy vessel would move to a point some five miles off Sancho Pardo Bank and, with lights ablaze and engines running loudly, would attract the attention of shore lookouts and the Cuban patrol boats. The decoy vessel would be in international waters, so there was little the Communists could do but to keep it under surveillance and, we hoped, be distracted from the team and us.

Tension mounted as the briefing continued. We were all sweating profusely in the small, closed space. The commando team leader, visibly nervous, drew on the back of a nautical chart a rough sketch of the coastline near Dimas. He spoke Spanish to the team and Marcus translated for me. The launching and the boarding of the rubber rafts were routine, each man knew his assignment. The silent engines would be mounted and started immediately while the boats remained in tow. When the ship reached the drop point, Captain Luis would momentarily rev the engine as a signal to relase the line. The two rafts would then proceed shoreward. Once inland, the team would locate a safe hiding place and stay there until dawn.

At first light, the team would bury the cache containers in the mangroves that fringed the shoreline. Then two of the men would move several hundred yards inland to observe the road that ran along the coast from Dimas to the village of Baja. If the team was detected, Castro's men would probably use that route to reach the area; approach from the sea by any sizeable boat was impossible because of the shallow water. In addition, the team might be able to pick up some valuable information while watching the road. When it was sufficiently dark, the team would reassemble, uncover their rubber boats, and, this time using only paddles, row back to the rendezvous point. Besides using the compass on the return trip, they would have an RDF receiver to home in on the mother ship.

Captain Luis would have the mother ship in the vicinity of the rendezvous point for one hour, from 0200 to 0300. If for some reason contct was not made, we would return at the same time the following night. After that, the team would be presumed lost. The decoy vessel would play essentially the asme role during the recovery phase as it had during the drop, and, of course, would take us back to Florida.......

[Tim Gratz]

Miles, in response to your post, a few comments.

1. Someonev proposed that "Pearl" might not be the correct name of the man's daughter and Ayers used that name to prtotect identities. Who knows, maybe his informant was a son. But the history of the man described as "Pearl's father" in Chapters 31 and 32 of "The Zenith Secret" is so detailed that I sent Mrs. Eisenhower those chapters to read and asked her if a man as so described ever worked for BG (regardless of the names of his children). She said no one meeting that description ever worked for BG.

You state, other than that is there anything else that might cause you to doubt Ayers' story?

That's like saying if there was definitive proof thast Jesus never EXISTED, "apart from such proof, is there anything else that might cause a thinking person to doubt the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?"

But I also pointed out that the whole story is on its face risible. Neither the Mafia (which was IMO involved) nor the CIA (which most likely was NOT) would use an outsider like "Pearl's father" to carry "bag money" for the assassination.

[William Kelly]

Biil, I think it was RCD who said or implied I might be lying about what Mrs Eisenhower told and wrote me.

As it now stands, either Mrs. Eisenhower lied (very doubtful IMO), Pearl lied, or Ayers did. The latter remains IMO a very serious possibility.

You cannot fault my morals or ethics merely because I am exploring whether Ayers made up the entire Pearl story.

You wrote:

BRAD AYERS IS A DECORATED US RANGER AND VETERAN AND FORMER TRAINER OF ANTI-CASTRO COMMANDOS AT JMWAVE {I do not dispute that] WHOSE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNTS CONFIRM THE INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JMWAVE MARITIME OPERATIONS AND WHAT HAPPENED AT DEALEY PLAZA. [but Bill his first-hand accounts cannot be believed absent independent verification if it turns out who made up the Pearl story. If he did, who knows what else he made up? He can only be considered a "reliable source" if he did NOT manufacture the Pearl story.]

Tim,

The problem is that Mrs. Eisenhower says that there was no one such as Pearl or anyone related to Pearl connected to Goldwater in anyway.

Is that correct?

Here's a question:

Other than that, is there anything at all which might cause you or a thinking person to doubt Ayers' Pearl story?

Tim, Why didn't you answer Miles' question UNDER his question rather than UNDER my additional quotes of BEA's trip on the Rex?

Now that aspect of the thread returns to your BS about "Pearl" and Eisenhower.

If you are responding to Miles, please don't disrupt the thread on the Rex, which is much more significant than anything you can come up with re: BEA & Pearl.

Bill Kelly

[William Kelly]

Miles, in response to your post, a few comments.

1. Someonev proposed that "Pearl" might not be the correct name of the man's daughter and Ayers used that name to prtotect identities. Who knows, maybe his informant was a son. But the history of the man described as "Pearl's father" in Chapters 31 and 32 of "The Zenith Secret" is so detailed that I sent Mrs. Eisenhower those chapters to read and asked her if a man as so described ever worked for BG (regardless of the names of his children). She said no one meeting that description ever worked for BG.

You state, other than that is there anything else that might cause you to doubt Ayers' story?

That's like saying if there was definitive proof thast Jesus never EXISTED, "apart from such proof, is there anything else that might cause a thinking person to doubt the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?"

But I also pointed out that the whole story is on its face risible. Neither the Mafia (which was IMO involved) nor the CIA (which most likely was NOT) would use an outsider like "Pearl's father" to carry "bag money" for the assassination.

TIM, IF YOU INSIST ON HARPING ON THIS PEARL CRAP, PLEASE START A NEW THREAD DEDICATED TO PEARL AND EISENHOWER AND ALLOW THIS THREAD TO BE ABOUT AYERS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, ESPECIALLY JMWAVE AND THE REX.

ALSO, SINCE YOU HAVE MADE EXTENSIVE REFERENCE TO TWO CHAPTERS OF BEA'S BOOK THE ZENITH SECRTE - WHICH TAKES IT'S NAME FROM THE COVER NAME FOR THE CIA'S JMWAVE BASE, WHY DON'T POST A LINK SO OTHERS CAN READ THE ONLY PART OF THE BOOK THAT YOU HAVE READ?

BILL KELLY

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

MY NAME IS MARK HOWELL. I AM A SENIOR WRITER FOR "SOLARES HILL", THE WEEKLY ARTS & LITERATURE SUPLLEMENT TO "THE KEY WEST CITIZEN".

AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, TIM GRATZ AND I HAVE AUTHORED SEVERAL ARTICLES ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION, OFTEN CONCENTRATING ON THE POSSIBLE KEYS' CONNECTION.

TIM EXPLAINED TO ME THE CONTROVERSY IN THIS THREAD ABOUT WHETHER A MAN IDENTIFIED AS "PEARL'S FATHER" WORKED ON THE STAFF OF SEN BARRY GOLDWATER. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD CONTACTED MRS JUDY EISENHOWER, THE LONG-TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO SENATOR GOLDWATER, FIRST BY PHONE AND LATER BY E-MAIL. SHE DENIED ANY SUCH PERSON WORKED ON THE GOLDWATER STAFF.

TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER. HE ASKED ME TO LOOK AT HIS E-MAIL TO CONFIRM HIS CONTACT WITH MRS. EISENHOWER, SO A THIRD PARTY COULD DO SO.

I DID.

TIM SENT THIS E-MAIL TO MRS EISENHOWER ON SAT OCT 20 AT 6:28 p.m.:

Dear Mrs. Eisenhower:

Have you had a chance to read you the material I sent you re the allegations of Bradley Ayers re the father of a lady he identifies as "Pearl" who Ayers says Pearl says was a long-time member of Sen. Goldwater's staff?

Was there anyone associated with BG who met the description of the man Ayers describes as "Pearl's father" even if the man had no daughter named Pearl?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk" this lie.

I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT WHAT TIM SENT MRS EISENHOWER WAS CHAPTERS 31 AND 32 OF BRADLEY AYERS' BOOK.

THIS WAS MRS. EISENHOWER'S E-MAIL REPLY TO TIM, SENT TO TIM SUNDAY, OCTOBER 21st.

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

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

I DO NOT FEEL AT LIBERTY TO DISCLOSE THE E-MAIL ADDRESS OF MRS. EISENHOWER.

I PRESUME THIS DISPOSES OF ANY POSSIBLE THOUGHT THAT TIM LIED ABOUT CONTACTING MRS. EISENHOWER OR WHAT SHE TOLD HIM.

IF ANYONE WANTS TO, I CAN VERIFY THIS POSTING MADE BY TIM BUT AT MY DIRECTION. MY E-MAIL ADDRESS IS

mhowell33040@yahoo.com.

THANK YOU.

One’s head literally spins from all the errors, omissions, distortions, self-serving misinterpretations, misstatements of fact, and unsupportable inferences drawn by Tim Gratz in his quest to discredit Brad Ayers.

With all due respect to Mark Howell, Tim Gratz’s co-author of a number of spurious articles written with the intent of pinning the Kennedy assassination on Castro, Howell’s confirmation of the Gratz/Eisenhower e-mail exchange, while quite telling in some ways, is not what Tim originally promised when he posted:

Oct 23 2007, 09:45 PM

“To satisfy you, I will provide someone on the Forum with my e-mail exchange with Mrs. Eisenhower.”

Mark is neither a Forum member nor an impartial and disinterested party, but a colleague in Tim’s past attempts to blame the assassination on Castro. Moreover, while the e-mail address provided may be his, it is demonstrable that anybody, using any name, can concoct a yahoo e-mail address. Hence, it is likely more prudent to contact him at the e-mail address we know for certain he uses professionally:

mhowell@keysnews.com

Mark then asserts, no doubt in good faith, that “TIM THEN SAID THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON ON THIS FORUM HAD ACCUSED HIM OF LYING ABOUT HIS CONTACT WITH MRS, EISENHOWER.”

I took this to be a reference to something Bill Kelly may have said, but Tim posited otherwise:

Yesterday, 05:48 PM

“Biil, I think it was RCD who said or implied I might be lying about what Mrs Eisenhower told and wrote me.”

Those who do not share Tim’s haphazard reading problems or his elastic recall may be as surprised by this as I was, for here is precisely what I have written on this to date:

Oct 24 2007, 01:04 AM

“I have little doubt that you spoke with Ms. Eisenhower, and that she told you what you have claimed here. Where is the confirmation for Ms. Eisenhower from a second source that you think is required of others? Apparently you think different rules apply to you. They do not.”

On the same date, I noted:

“Tim, this is less about what transpired between you and Ms. Eisenhower – though I’m sure it would make an interesting read – than the lack of a second confirming source that you would require of Ayers, Kelly, me, et al, but – seemingly – not yourself.”

On the same date, I noted:

“The totality of your purported correspondence with Ms. Eisenhower, in original unedited form, would help to establish that, perhaps. Though I don’t think it necessary, feel free to make good on your offer to provide it to another impartial Forum member for posting here, if it’ll make you feel better.”

Mark Howell then notes the contents of the e-mail from Tim Gratz to Ms. Eisenhower, yet it was only sent to her a full ten days after Tim had already branded Brad Ayers a “xxxx,” no doubt based upon Tim’s phone call with her. Yet, his e-mail is in stark contradiction to what he has posted elsewhere herein, to wit:

Oct 23 2007, 07:14 AM

“I have no "motive" here but to discover the truth.”

How does this square with the motive Tim Gratz provided to Ms. Eisenhower?

“Thank you for any assistance you can provide so I can definitively "debunk"

this lie

.”

Simple quest for truth, or deliberate intent to “debunk” what he has already concluded is a lie? Even the most literacy-challenged should have little trouble discerning which is more likely the case.

On a similar note regarding Tim’s professed lack of “motive here but to discover the truth,” it is no great challenge to pop that pompous balloon, because Tim has already alerted us repeatedly to his actual motive and intent, in his own words:

Oct 12 2007, 07:49 AM

“But of course Bill if in fact he simply made up the story about Pearl's father and Goldwater, how do you know he ever even went on a mission on the Rex?”

Oct 23 2007, 10:03 AM

“If Ayers made up the Pearl story, BK, how can we believe a word he says about anything or anybody?”

Oct 24 2007, 05:07 AM

“But if he lied about the Pearl story, we obviously cannot believe anything he says.”

Yesterday, 05:48 PM

“[but Bill his first-hand accounts cannot be believed absent independent verification if it turns out who made up the Pearl story. If he did, who knows what else he made up? He can only be considered a "reliable source" if he did NOT manufacture the Pearl story.]”

So, it seems that Tim is quite anxious for the world at large to discount the contents of Ayers’ book, based upon his self-declared demonstration – absent definitive proof – that Ayers is a “xxxx.” Little wonder, for Tim is greatly unnerved when anyone dares claim CIA involvement in the crime of the previous century.

Not content with simply impeaching Ayers’ credibility, Tim has also threatened to take action should Ayers ever be called to testify, solely based – again – on his own reading of the “Pearl” story, to wit:

Oct 23 2007, 04:53 AM

“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.”

Oct 23 2007, 04:53 AM

“Well, I can assure you, Mr. Kelly, that my advising the prosecutor that it appears that Ayers may have filed a deliberately false statement about the assassination does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute “tampering with a witness” as defined in 18 U.S.C. sec. 1512. In fact, I believe I would have a duty to so advise any prosecutor.”

It is ironic that Tim has drafted his cohort Mark Howell to serve as his witness. Mark Howell, Tim informs us, has won a number of journalism prizes for his literary work. Mark consequently knows something about the necessity for a second source prior to accepting as truth – and publishing - the contentions of a first source. It is the demand Tim has made of Brad Ayers regarding Pearl, and of Bill Kelly regarding Brady Ayers. Yet Tim feels no obligation to abide by the very thing he insists upon from others.

This is precisely the bone I’ve continued to pick with Tim throughout this thread, that he hasn’t bothered to supply a second confirming source for whatever he may have been told by Ms. Eisenhower.

Sure, Tim has made allusions to perhaps getting around to that, to wit:

Oct 15 2007, 03:06 AM

“I have asked Mrs. Eisenhower who was BG's liason to the Mexican-American community. I guess from there I could try to see if that man (I assume he must have had such a liason) had children.”

Oct 15 2007, 03:06 AM

“I am also contacting another man who worked very closely with BG in that period.”

Oct 23 2007, 06:51 AM

“What if I have another BG staff member around during that period of time who refutes the existence of anyone meeting the description of Pearl's father?”

Oct 24 2007, 05:07 AM

“So when I provide information from a second source who worked for BG during the period in question, and who verifies that no such person worked for BG, are you then willing to apologize to me, dear boy?”

But, so far at least, Tim has not made good on this fundamental obligation, which rightly should have been undertaken and completed prior to labeling Ayers a “xxxx,” which he did on Oct. 11.

If Tim’s “sense of decency,” to which he repeatedly alludes, were in fact real, he might also have troubled himself to do what he insists that Bill Kelly and others are required to do, which is to contact Ayers himself for clarification. But since that would demand more effort of Tim than a mere Google search or quick phone call, Tim dispensed with that fundamental necessity and simply branded Ayers a “xxxx,” and only then promised to contact him, to wit:

Oct 13 2007, 03:50 PM

“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.”

Oct 13 2007, 08:49 PM

“And I stated I am going to write to Ayers to see if he can substantiate a word he wrote about that story.

But again, dear readers, don't hold your breath waiting for his reply.”

Oct 15 2007, 04:42 AM

“Thank you, Bill. I will write to him.”

Oct 22 2007, 03:59 AM

“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.”

In essence: now that Tim has already convicted Ayers before his self-staffed court of one, he will now allow a trial and might even seek out a defense. This is the Alice in Wonderland methodology applied to a potentially important witness to key historical events.

One understands why Tim continues to insist that this is all a matter of his own credibility being questioned, including falsely asserting that I am the one who questioned it in regard to Ms. Eisenhower’s e-mail [see above]. It deflects attention from far more consequential issues that he would rather continue ignoring, as he has persisted in doing. For instance, I posted this:

Oct 25 2007, 05:47 PM

“You seem to argue that even if Pearl existed and her story was true, Ms. Eisenhower would blithely admit this to some total stranger. She may well have her own reasons for wishing the Ayers story to die a quiet death. If you’ve done the slightest homework on her role within Goldwater’s operations, you know that she ruled the roost and the only people who got to see him or even speak with him on the phone were those she allowed access to the Senator. This being the case, if the Pearl story is true, it is highly unlikely she didn’t know of the circumstances. Which means that she would have aided and abetted a criminal conspiracy. Yet you, in your capacity as an Inspector Clouseau impersonator, would actually expect her to admit this to a complete stranger. You seem to have declared “somebody I don’t know, or know anything about, told me what I wanted to hear and that’s good enough for me.” Well it’s not good enough, Tim. You grow less clever by the day.”

Tim’s response? Total silence. Which is understandable, given that my posted comments demolish the foolhardy and witless approach he took with Ms. Eisenhower. Tim would rather rail at those questioning his credibility than confront the very serious and real possibility that Ms. Eisenhower may have her own self-serving reasons for providing the answer she did. Tim seems to have never considered this, and is no doubt unhappy to see it brought up again.

And yet, hypocritically and disingenuously, Tim nevertheless insists:

Oct 12 2007, 09:01 AM

“You simply cannot honestly write about the assassination without investigating the reliability of your sources.”

Tim has also repeatedly referred to Goldwater as a “straight-arrow” and mocked any possible connections to Mob types. When I posted sourced and researched data that Goldwater’s associations to unsavoury Mob types, directly and through family, were at least career-long, and possibly life-long, what was Tim’s response. Total silence.

Which is understandable, given that Tim asserts it is ridiculous for CIA or Mob types to use the staff and good offices of a sitting US senator just to move some money around. And it might be, were it not for the demonstrably real nexus at which both Goldwater and various ruthless Mob types were simultaneously located.

Those wishing proof for a similar scenario might benefit from reading what can be found here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...75BC0A961948260

Tim has repeatedly insisted that Mob types need not rely upon solid citizens, for they have enough of their own flunkies, and that solid citizens cannot be dragooned into providing that service to the Mob in any case. This is fatuous nonsense. Mobsters love using solid citizens, for the patina of respectability they convey to the broader world minimizes the chance of getting caught, and provides the Mobsters with plausible deniability in the event that they are caught. “Solid citizens” need only be liable to coercion or corruption.

Tim also attempts to impeach the totality of what Ayers writes, assuming the “Pearl” story is sufficient leverage to do so, by invoking a legal theorem, to wit:

Oct 13 2007, 05:23 PM

“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.”

Unfortunately, Tim is not “smart enough” to realize that the very same theorem - which cannot yet be used against Ayers - does apply to him, which is why his own prior misdeeds are considered germane. [it is also telling that Tim refuses to read Ayers book because he’s already prejudged it and found it “is probably replete with lies.” There’s a civics class model of due process, in Tim Gratz’s world.]

Equally hypocritical and disingenuous is another of his assertions:

Oct 23 2007, 06:22 AM

“But I assert it is a very serious matter if someone deliberately publishes false information about the assassination, an as-of-yet unsolved crime.”

Which is precisely why I harangue Tim every time one of his demands of others is unmatched by his own behaviour here. Unless and until Tim Gratz can demonstrate that Brad Ayers has a past track record of dissembling or other fraudulent bad acts, as Tim himself can boast, or that Ayers has demonstrably lied in his book, Ayers is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Or did they not teach you that part prior to taking your Bar exam, Tim?

What I’ve seen here to date doesn’t constitute proof that Brad Ayers lied in his book, only that malicious prosecution [not to say persecution] isn’t confined to the courtroom.

Worst of all, of course, is the chill such behaviour would have upon anyone who thought they had relevant information about the assassination. Such baseless attacks can only dissuade such persons from coming forward with what they know. As I have already pointed out:

Oct 24 2007, 01:04 AM

"Worse by far, your vilification of a potentially crucial witness may disincline him from making any further effort to place his knowledge in the public record. He may very well simply throw his hands in the air and wonder why he even bothers to try. Should he be contacted by Bill Kelly’s hypothetical grand jury, will he still be willing to testify knowing that presumptuous slander will likely be his only reward? Rather than you mounting an attempt to determine the truth, as you claim, your one-man campaign to vilify may serve only to silence one of the few remaining witnesses we have to events that have thus far remained largely unplumbed. Is that your intent? Because that’s the way it looks."

Those already well familiar with Tim’s track record here will be unsurprised at the suggestion that this is his modus operandi, in furtherance of a protect-CIA agenda. Those newbies and lurkers who are not familiar with Tim’s track record here are now better able to judge for themselves.

It would also be helpful if Tim would trouble himself to reply to Miles Scull's still-unanswered question:

"Other than that, is there anything at all which might cause you or a thinking person to doubt Ayers' Pearl story?"

Am I the only one to wonder why Miles would distinguish between "you" [Tim Gratz] and "a thinking person?" Has the Mod Squad been alerted to this?

[Miles Scull]

It would also be helpful if Tim would trouble himself to reply to Miles Scull's still-unanswered question:

"Other than that, is there anything at all which might cause you or a thinking person to doubt Ayers' Pearl story?"

Am I the only one to wonder why Miles would distinguish between "you" [Tim Gratz] and "a thinking person?" Has the Mod Squad been alerted to this?

I am found out.

Tim is like a busy mending apparatus, popping up here & there & everywhere with a finger plug for a dike chink. Beyond lies a sea of horrible unknowns.

I just don't see merit in his Ms. Eisenhower counter to Ayers.

[Tim Gratz]

To consider Robert Charles-Dunne's post just boggles the mind.

First, he denies that he ever suggested I lied about my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower.

But then he implies that I might have made up the post from Mark Howell and manufactured an e-mail address for him to further that fiction!

Just astounding.

RCD wrote:

Unfortunately, Tim is not “smart enough” to realize that the very same theorem - which cannot yet be used against Ayers - does apply to him, which is why his own prior misdeeds are considered germane. [it is also telling that Tim refuses to read Ayers book because he’s already prejudged it and found it “is probably replete with lies.” There’s a civics class model of due process, in Tim Gratz’s world.]

Two comments. Note that RCD uses the term "yet" with respect to Ayers. I think he in his heart of hearts suspects that AT LEAST Chapters 31 and 32 belong in the fiction section of the library. And, on a technical note, "falsus in uno" I believe does NOT apply to my postings here. Technically, "falsus in uno" applies if one has made a misstatement of fact in a legal proceeding, then the jury is entitled, as instructed by the court, that it can disregard all other statements made within that proceeding. Since my Bar problems in no way relate to the issues here, one really cannot apply that principle (it's a principle, not a theorem) to me. But as noted above, I did provide independent verification from Mark Howell re my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower.

Now, although RCD claims he never implied that I was lying about my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower (I still think he did in one of his many posts here but I will try to research that) he clearly DOES imply that I fabricated the verification of a contact that he does not (he says) dispute. Where is the logic of THAT?

Now RCD goes on and on about the need for a second source to verify what Mrs. Eisenhower said. He states or implies that Mrs. Eisenhower might have lied to protect BG or herself or both. Well, obviously any source I could find to verify what Mrs. Eisenhower said would also be someone very close to BG. Do you suspect RCD would not also challenge that second source?

Now I have located a second potential source but frankly I don't want to disturb this fellow (who is obviously now "up in years") unless RCD agrees that if this man verifies what Mrs. Eisenhower says, he will then accept as fact that no one as described by Mr. Ayers in Chapter 31 and 32 ever worked for BG. Then we can turn our attention to whether Ayers ever met anyone he calls "Pearl" and if that person lied to him (and he never bothered to check her story) or whether Ayers just made up the whole story.

It is also rather strange, is it not, that although RCD vigorously demand a second source verification from me re what Mrs. Eisenhower said, he apparently claims not a whit that Ayers never apparently attempted any verification of the story "Pearl" told him (assuming Pearl even exists outside Ayers' mind. One might perhaps call this as double standard. Why does RCD not suggest to the reader that one might want to take the whole "Pearl" story with severalgrains of salt because there is no independent verification of any of it?

RCD states in response to one of my arguments why the Pearl story is, on its face, nonsense, the following:

Tim has repeatedly insisted that Mob types need not rely upon solid citizens, for they have enough of their own flunkies, and that solid citizens cannot be dragooned into providing that service to the Mob in any case. This is fatuous nonsense. Mobsters love using solid citizens, for the patina of respectability they convey to the broader world minimizes the chance of getting caught, and provides the Mobsters with plausible deniability in the event that they are caught. “Solid citizens” need only be liable to coercion or corruption.

Interestingly, RCD provides no support for his statements from ANY recognized expert on OC. Moreover, according to Brad's "Pearl", her father was neither coerced or corrupt. Well, there goes THAT RCD explanation out the window!

Does it ever strike anyone that with all the effort RCD has spent formulating his attacks on me, he could have, in far less time, written to Ayers HIMSELF and simply asked Ayers for what documentation or support he had for the "Pearl" story? But don't worry, Robert, I will get around to writing Ayers myself.

ROBERT, DO YOU ACCEPT WHAT I SAID IN BOLD ABOVE? ONE REASON I SO REQUEST IS THAT I DO NOT HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR MY SECOND SOURCE AND WILL NEED TO PRINT OUT ALL OF CHAPTER 31 AND 32 TO MAIL TO HIM. I DON'T WANT TO UNDERGO THAT EXPENSE UNLESS I HAVE YOUR ASSURANCE YOU WILL NOT THEN BRAND THAT GENTLEMAN AS A xxxx.

ALSO I WOULD REQUEST YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION: IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECOND SOURCE VERIFICATION SHOULD WE NOT THEN DISREGARD EVERYTHING AYERS WRITES FOR WHICH HE DOES NOT PROVIDE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION?

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

ALSO, SINCE YOU HAVE MADE EXTENSIVE REFERENCE TO TWO CHAPTERS OF BEA'S BOOK THE ZENITH SECRTE - WHICH TAKES IT'S NAME FROM THE COVER NAME FOR THE CIA'S JMWAVE BASE, WHY DON'T POST A LINK SO OTHERS CAN READ THE ONLY PART OF THE BOOK THAT YOU HAVE READ?

Bill, I got it from YOUR own very post (Post #51 in this thread).

By the way, Bill, when you are using its in the possessive, the apostrophe is incorrect. Only use an apostrophe when "it's" is used as a contraction for it is.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill wrote:

ALSO, SINCE YOU HAVE MADE EXTENSIVE REFERENCE TO TWO CHAPTERS OF BEA'S BOOK THE ZENITH SECRTE - WHICH TAKES IT'S NAME FROM THE COVER NAME FOR THE CIA'S JMWAVE BASE, WHY DON'T POST A LINK SO OTHERS CAN READ THE ONLY PART OF THE BOOK THAT YOU HAVE READ?

Bill, I got it from YOUR own very post (Post #51 in this thread).

By the way, Bill, when you are using its in the possessive, the apostrophe is incorrect. Only use an apostrophe when "it's" is used as a contraction for it is.

Okay, Tim,

I started a whole thread for you to talk about Pearl and Goldwater.

You correct my grammer and I'll correct your thinking.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Sounds like a fair trade to me, Bill.

Course I always thought it curious that if Dallas was a CIA "black op" to prompt an invasion of Cuba [apparently your scenario], the entire operation backfired on its sponsors. As your friend Mr. Ayers notes in his book, the U.S. operations against Cuba were in fact cut back after the assassination of JFK.

Edited October 29, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Oct 29 2007, 04:34 AM' post='124801']

To consider Robert Charles-Dunne's post just boggles the mind.

First, he denies that he ever suggested I lied about my contacts with Mrs. Eisenhower.

But then he implies that I might have made up the post from Mark Howell and manufactured an e-mail address for him to further that fiction!

Just astounding.

Tim:

I suggest you try re-reading Robert's post. It was very clear. Then I would echo Bill Kelly's sentiment, that you remove these discussions from this most important thread. If you must hijack it, start a new thread to do so.

That you would try to silence a potential witness in this manner is very troubling, imho.

(And I will not post further in this thread on this off topic matter).

Dawn

Edited October 29, 2007 by Dawn Meredith

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

This is precisely the bone I’ve continued to pick with Tim throughout this thread, that he hasn’t bothered to supply a second confirming source for whatever he may have been told by Ms. Eisenhower

Now let's alter that just a tad, to-wit:

This is precisely the bone I’ have with Mr. Ayers; that he hasn’t bothered to supply a second confirming source for whatever he may have been told by Ms. Pearl.

Ever hear Robert say THAT? I haven't.

TALK ABOUT A DOUBLE STANDARD. WHY DOES ROBERT NOT APPLY THE STANDARD HE ESPOUSES TO AYERS? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE: AYERS SUPPORTS HIS "BLAME THE CIA" AGENDA WHEREAS I DO NOT.