Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Tim Gratz]

In rereading my few previous posts I just noticed a weird COINCIDENCE.

It is on page 221 of BG's autobiography that he describes having but one assistant after he returned to Phoenix in 1965.

It is on page 221 of "The Zenith Secret" that Ayers recounts Pearl's mini-biography of her father (if Pearl existed).

Isn't that strange? The key passages in both books are on pages 221.

And I suspect David Guyatt will attribute a numerological mystery to the first two digits!

[Tim Gratz]

I still intend to write to Ayers but I believe I have now demonstrated rather conclusively that either Pearl lied to Ayers or that Ayers made up the entire story.

I also believe I have conclusively demolished Robert Charles-Dunne's claim that Judy Eisenhower (nee Rooney) was not working for BG in the early 1960s and that his claim to the contrary was due, at a minimum, to sloppy research. Moreover, I also think I have established that Robert-Charles Dunne's claim that the man identified by Ayers as "Pearl's father" might be Dean Burch was laughable on its face if one had even bothered to read Chapters 31 and 32 of the Ayers book.

One other item I thought of: Ayers claims Pearl gave him as "documentation" that her father had worked for BG a set of Christmas cards her father had received from BG. But think of this: she never claimed that her father ever attended a Christmas party put on by BG for members of his staff. So if there indeed was a Pearl whose father got Christmas cards from BG, I think we can conclude that he was not a BG staff member.

I am going to challenge Ayers to produce a copy of that photograph. If he was REALLY searching for the truth, would he not have shown the photograph to someone on BG's staff who might have been able to identify the men pictured--or at least state whether any of them had ever been a "long-time employee" of the BG staff, traveling back and forth to Phoenix and DC.

I doubt Ayers has such a photo to produce. What do you think?

[Tim Gratz]

To Bill Kelly:

It is now alsmost "conventional wisdom" (at least among members of the "assassination research committee") that David Morales participated in the assassination.

Ayers claims Pearl gave him and allowed him to copy a photo of Senator BG withDavid Morales and a man she claimed was her father who she says unkowingly acted as a "bag man" for the assassination.

Since Ayers accepted the photo as at least a partial verification of Pearl's claims, I can only assume he published it in "The Zenith Secret".

I ASSUME you have the book since you have been publishing excerpts of it. Can you confirm or deny the book includes that photo?

Thank you.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Well, RN may have been known as "Tricky Dick" but his trickiness is in no way a match for that of Mr. Charles-Dunne. Man, the guy puts Arlen Specter to shame.

Look at what he wrote:

Now scroll down to page #11 and you'll see that Ms. Eisenhower was "Goldwater's administrative assistant of 32 years," ceasing upon his death in '98. Now grab a calculator and do the math. When did she commence working for him? Certainly not "during the period in question," as you stated. [My emphasis.]

Charles-Dunne clearly implies that that article states that Mrs. Eisenhower continued working for Barry Goldwater until he died in 1998.

This is an incorrect inference, Tim. You asked for the obscure journal to which I had alluded in my prior post but for which I hadn’t provided an URL. I provided the citation, which includes the facts that Ms. E. was for 32 years Goldwater’s “administrative assistant,” which is precisely what I had previously stated. Nothing more, nothing less.

He must really believe his rhetoric that I am too lazy to check his work.

This is an incorrect recitation of what I said, Tim. I have not accused you of being too lazy to check the work of others; only too lazy to do your own. Now, in a fit of pique designed to make others look bad, you have suddenly found the motivation to do some work. Bully for you. I’m glad I could help spur this productivity.

You go and read the entire article. No where does it state that Mrs. Eisenhower worked for BG until his death as he clearly implies.

This is an incorrect inference, Tim. Please see above.

Where did he get that info? Apparently just out of his head (like Ayers). Some might even call that a "lawyer's trick". (I know I thus leave an opening for him to regurgitate my bar problems one more time but I trust readers are tired of that tactic by now.)

I thought we had agreed not to further mention your past bar problems, Tim. Yet here you raise the issue yet again. Are you so masochistic that you’ll spurn a détente? As for accusing me of lawyerly behaviour, I’ve been called many things, but that’s the lowest insult I’ve yet had to endure.

A reasonable assumption is that Mrs. Eisenhower worked for BG until he left the U.S. Senate. Charles-Dunne, that paragon of research, apparently never bothered to Google BG or he would have learned that BG left the U.S. Senate on Jan 1, 1987. So he was in office through all of 1986. So let's do THAT math. 1986 less 32 is 1954, about a year after BG first took his oath as a U. S. Senator. She was truly with him from the start of his national political career.

Assumptions, whether purportedly “reasonable” or otherwise, remain just that: assumptions. Clearly, you are having the same difficulty in locating Ms. E.’s full resume that I have encountered. It is peculiar that even the web pages that publicize Ms. E.’s extensive experience with BG are devoid of itemized information.

However, there is no mystery here. The first article I read on her tenure with BG either stipulated or implied that she had been on his payroll until his demise, which is what I based my mathematical calculations upon.

However, subsequent to posting that, I encountered another web page suggesting that Ms. E. began working for BG back in or around ’52, which would have been when he first ran for the Senate. Yet, given a 32 year tenure with him, that would mean she left BG’s employ in ’84, which is contradicted by a large number of other articles that clearly have her still working for him in ’86-7. [Also, I found an undated photo of her from the ‘70s, in which she looks too young to have worked for him, or anyone, for 20 or more years. Perhaps she’s blessed with youthful genes.] At this juncture, the issue is too puzzling to definitively resolve, but as time allows I will continue to plumb this.

So is it just my assumption that Mrs. Eisenhower was with BG in the early 1960s ("the period in question"). No. Unlike Charles-Dunne, I DID my homework.

Unlike LBJ, BG had the integrity to resign from the Senate so he left DC in early 1965. In AZ, according to Chapter 8 of his autobiolgraphy (p. 221) "I opened a small office in Phoenix with a staff of one, Judy Rooney, who had worked with me in Washington. (She later married Earl Eisenhower, a nephew of the former president.)"

Sadly, that is no more specific regarding a start date. “…who had worked with me in Washington” could mean for the prior six months or six years. Since you have BG’s autobio handy, you should be able to inform us if he mentions when he first hired Ms. E. That would be most helpful.

So there you have it. Charles-Dunne tried a little con job on you folks (ala Ayers) by making an assumption when Mrs. Eisenhower last worked for BG and then implying that the article he cited so stated. Never once did he offer a caveat that his conclusion was based on an assumption of which he had no proof. And obviously he, who accuses ME of laziness, was unable to get off "his duff" (his words) to truck on down to the library and review the autobiography of BG.

As I said once in reference to Ayers, caveat lector!

Robert, are you now willing to concede that just as Mrs. Eisenhower told me she was working for BG in the early 1960s? Dear reader, don't you think that was one of the first questions I asked her?

Given that all we’ve been provided with is an e-mail in which no such question was asked or answered, it is impossible to say with any assurance. All we do know for certain is that you asked one question, in seeking her assistance in “debunking this lie,” which is not exactly an impartial way to conduct one’s interrogatories. The phrase "leading the witness" comes to mind. But having telegraphed her what you wanted to hear, and heard from her precisely what you wanted to, that was enough for you. Shoddy methods equal slipshod results. I am delighted, though, that you are now underaking something a tad more onerous. Bully for you.

Let me tell you, Robert, I forgive you. How can one NOT appreciate the guy who came up with that quote about Dole and Viagra!

I believe forgiveness is the purview of The Divine, Tim.

We may have to settle for a split decision on this. You were clearly wrong in labeling Ms. E. Goldwater’s “Chief of Staff,” for no credible media source has ever identified her as that, nor did she make such a claim for herself, even on the websites where her bio data was provided by Ms. E. herself. Nor did you choose to belabour the issue, which I can only interpret as your tacit, unstated acknowledgement that you were incorrect on that score.

As for her tenure with BG, you may yet prove correct. Given what I’ve cited above, it is presently too muddled to say with certainty. Rest assured, if her tenure with BG lasted until his death, my point stands; but similarly, if your “reasonable assumption” proves correct, I will gladly advise you, once I’ve managed to nail it down. If you locate definitive dates before I do, feel free to provide them.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, I will post a substantive reply tomorrow.

I hate to disturb Mrs. Goldwater again but I guess I shall have to.

Can we at least agree that Dean Burch was not the man referred to in Ayers' book as "Pearl's father"?

[William Kelly]

To Bill Kelly:

It is now alsmost "conventional wisdom" (at least among members of the "assassination research committee") that David Morales participated in the assassination.

Ayers claims Pearl gave him and allowed him to copy a photo of Senator BG withDavid Morales and a man she claimed was her father who she says unkowingly acted as a "bag man" for the assassination.

Since Ayers accepted the photo as at least a partial verification of Pearl's claims, I can only assume he published it in "The Zenith Secret".

I ASSUME you have the book since you have been publishing excerpts of it. Can you confirm or deny the book includes that photo?

Thank you.

The photo of Morales, BG and Pearl's father is not in "Zenith Secret."

If it was I would think that would be the end of the discussion.

And what's "The Assassination Research Committee"?

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I appreciate your honesty and promptness in that reply.

Obviously a photograph of Goldwater with Morales (let alone with someone who was allegedly a Goldwater staff member) would be a rather sensational item.

Since Ayers says that was the ONLY piece of corroborating evidence Pearl let him copy does it not say a LOT that the picture is NOT in the book?

And the story that Pearl showed Ayers a bunch of Christmas cards from BG to her father is kind of like the famous Sherlock Holmes story that turned on the absence of a barking dog. One would think if Pearl's father had actually worked for BG for all those many years, he would have saved a lot more memorabila than that. If Pearl's father was so good that BG kept him on staff for twenty or so years, is it even remotely conceivable that BG never wrote him (on letterhead or by hand) a letter thanking him for his good work? And come to think of it, why would there not be a picture of BG, Pearl's father and at least one other member of BG's staff?

If when I contact Ayers (and I will yet--I am still marshalling my facts) and he claims that he has that photograph, I will somehow raise the money to send a photographer over to take a picture of it, so all Ayers needs to do is produce the photo in his home.

Would you agree with me that Ayers probably made up the Pearl story if he has some excuse and cannot produce the photo?

[William Kelly]

Bill, I appreciate your honesty and promptness in that reply.

Obviously a photograph of Goldwater with Morales (let alone with someone who was allegedly a Goldwater staff member) would be a rather sensational item.

Since Ayers says that was the ONLY piece of corroborating evidence Pearl let him copy does it not say a LOT that the picture is NOT in the book?

And the story that Pearl showed Ayers a bunch of Christmas cards from BG to her father is kind of like the famous Sherlock Holmes story that turned on the absence of a barking dog. One would think if Pearl's father had actually worked for BG for all those many years, he would have saved a lot more memorabila than that. If Pearl's father was so good that BG kept him on staff for twenty or so years, is it even remotely conceivable that BG never wrote him (on letterhead or by hand) a letter thanking him for his good work? And come to think of it, why would there not be a picture of BG, Pearl's father and at least one other member of BG's staff?

If when I contact Ayers (and I will yet--I am still marshalling my facts) and he claims that he has that photograph, I will somehow raise the money to send a photographer over to take a picture of it, so all Ayers needs to do is produce the photo in his home.

Would you agree with me that Ayers probably made up the Pearl story if he has some excuse and cannot produce the photo?

NO.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Well then NOTHING will convince you.

We already know that Ayers has Pearl's father working out of BG's DC office when BG no longer had an office in DC.

Why should I bother contacting Ayers? If he confessed he made up the whole Pearl Story (a snowball's chance of course) you STILL would credit him, so desparate are you about the Gordon Campbell matter.

I see a bit more open-mindedness on the part of Robert Charles-Dunne. I would be interested in HIS reaction to the fact that Ayers supposedly has a photograph of BG with Morales and "Pearl's father" but it somehow did not make it into his book.

[William Kelly]

Well then NOTHING will convince you.

We already know that Ayers has Pearl's father working out of BG's DC office when BG no longer had an office in DC.

Why should I bother contacting Ayers? If he confessed he made up the whole Pearl Story (a snowball's chance of course) you STILL would credit him, so desparate are you about the Gordon Campbell matter.

I see a bit more open-mindedness on the part of Robert Charles-Dunne. I would be interested in HIS reaction to the fact that Ayers supposedly has a photograph of BG with Morales and "Pearl's father" but it somehow did not make it into his book.

Tim, I don't know why you bother doing anything you are doing.

I am focusing on those aspects of BEA's story about JMWAVE that I have already independently confirmed, so I no longer need his testimony.

Why should you contact Ayers? I don't know, or think he will even give somebody like you the time of day, as you won't question him properly to get the answers you don't want anyway.

You say I am "so desparate...about the Gordon Campbell matter" and indeed I am focusing on him, and anything and everything I can learn about him, and you can go off and do your thing with Goldwater and whatever it is you want to know about that.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I intend to ask him:

(a) The name of the man who he says Pearl told him worked for Goldwater.

( Whether he has the alleged photo showing this man posed with BG and David Morales.

© Whether he has his notes re his conversations with "Pearl".

(d) Whether he has any other documentation to demonstrate his meetings with Pearl.

Do you or Robert have any other suggestions?

[Tim Gratz]

Bill and Robert, since you are my "sparring partners" here I would appreciate your comments on the following.

Obviously a photo of BG with the man Pearl claims was her father does not prove his employment by BG.

Nor do a series of Christmas cards.

Would you agree that had Pearl's father worked for BG for more than twenty years, and given his "deathbed confession" to his daughter, and the obvious historical importance of the story, it is reasonable to assume she would have retained whatever papers he had in his personal effects to document that employment?

Would you also agree that given the alleged long-term employment there SHOULD HAVE BEEN more documentation, e.g., another photo or two; one or more letters; a tax return; invitations to staff parties; etc., and the absence of such documentation, while not dispositive, is at least indicative of reasons to suspect deception (regardless of whether the deception originated with Pearl or Ayers)?

Edited November 5, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill and Robert, since you are my "sparring partners" here I would appreciate your honest comment on the following. To keep my credibility out of it, I will pose that another author writes the following story:

(1) He encountered a Cuban exile in Miami.

(2) The exile tells the author her father had been close to Fidel Castro.

(3) The exile says her father through his close association with Castro had learned of Castro's involvement in the assassination.

(4) The exile gave the author for copying purposes a photo of her father with Fidel but that is her sole documentation of any close relationship.

(5) The author cannot any longer produce a copy of the photo.

So in the end all we have is the author's word re a statement about a man who cannot be identified by either name or photo.

The teller of the tale is no longer around so her demeanor cannot be observed.

Would you be inclined to believe or disbelieve that story?

Edited November 5, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Robert wrote:

As for accusing me of lawyerly behaviour, I’ve been called many things, but that’s the lowest insult I’ve yet had to endure.

I sincerely apologize, Robert. That was indeed about the lowest insult that one person can level at another! Far better to be called a horse thief or even one who cheats at dominoes than to have one's conduct likened to that of a lawyer! (There are probably more lawyer jokes around than those poking "fun" at all other occupations combined.)

[William Kelly]

Bill, I intend to ask him:

(a) The name of the man who he says Pearl told him worked for Goldwater.

( Whether he has the alleged photo showing this man posed with BG and David Morales.

© Whether he has his notes re his conversations with "Pearl".

(d) Whether he has any other documentation to demonstrate his meetings with Pearl.

Do you or Robert have any other suggestions?

Yea, ask him what the name of Gordon Campbell's yacht, whether it was a motor boat or sailboat; and what was Shackley's secretary's full name and hometown?

Of course I am checking out these items with others, and know you will probably run interference with these things, but at least you are busy body....

BK