Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[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?

Yes, Tim, ask him if he remembers the name of Gordon Campbell's yacht, whether it was a sailboat or motorboat, and the full name of Shackley's secretary?

I'm sure you will try to run interference on these issues, but that's okay, I'm checking with other sources, and at least you are a busy body.

BK

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

For the sake of brevity, I am responding to several of Tim’s posts with this single reply.

I see a bit more open-mindedness on the part of Robert Charles-Dunne.

I am so glad that Tim can detect “open-mindedness” in others, for he seems incapable of detecting the opposite in himself.

Tim has thus far managed to misconstrue much about this. Tim has depicted me as “desperate,” “deceitful” and “duplicitous” because I am

so

incredibly anxious to salvage Ayers’ credibility, he assures us. Why? Because I

so

wish Ayers’ story to be true that I will go to any lengths, fair and foul, to resist contrary assertions.

I have repeatedly stated herein that I don’t own either of Ayers’ books, I have never cited him on any topic in any way here at the Forum prior to this thread [to the best of my recollection], and yet

still

I am an Ayers groupie according to Tim. I don’t know how it would be possible for me to be more disinterested. Yet Tim would have members believe that Ayers is my client.

My only interest in this topic is the methods employed by Tim Gratz to dismiss somebody whose story

he

is anxious to impeach, and the motives that drive him. Were Tim more of an even-handed individual, I doubt that I’d have bothered to raise any concerns. But Forum members know of his penchant for skewing things to his liking, rather than his record for any empirical standard. Brad Ayers has provided additional ballast in a brief against CIA complicity in the assassination, and in the process suggested that Barry Goldwater’s staff was used to facilitate same. Tim has a personal vested interest in protecting both CIA and Goldwater, hence the full frontal attack against Ayers.

Forum members with long memories may also recall that Tim has been rather lackluster in living up to his own promises, freely made, to provide additional details to bolster his otherwise unsubstantiated assertions. I, for one, am still awaiting the materials he promised in April of 2005 to corroborate his claims that Fidel Castro had planned to blow up New York City. Waiting for Tim to contact Brad Ayers may likely run into years as well.

Tim has lectured others here on the importance of securing second-source confirmation for one’s contentions, and insists that Ayers neglected to do so. How does Tim know such a thing? He doesn’t. He hasn’t bothered to contact Ayers, as he’s repeated assured us for the past three-plus weeks that he would do, but likewise assures us that whatever Ayers did in the way of due diligence would have been included in his book. Since it’s not included in the book, Tim deduces Ayers conducted no attempts to verify the Pearl story. How does Tim know this? He doesn’t. Why? He hasn’t bothered to consult with the source, Bradley Ayers, despite recurring promises to do so.

Nor has Tim located a second-source confirmation for what he maintains he was told by Ms. Eisenhower in this regard. Admittedly, given the number of people in the Goldwater camp who have passed away in the interim since ’63, this presents a greater challenge than simply contacting Ayers for additional details. Nevertheless, in his rush to judgment, Tim first proclaimed Ayers a “xxxx” and only when challenged on this assertion did he bother to seek confirmation for his claims.

So much for “open-mindedness.”

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.

This is one of those head-slappingly silly comments for which Tim has become well known here at The Forum. Tim asserts that Ayers should have simply named Pearl’s father. Given what has been alleged by “Pearl,” and further given that Ayers would – one hopes – have gone to some effort to protect her identity precisely because of the nature of her allegations, is it not foolhardy to expect the author to do so, yet then print a photograph that could only serve to identify both the father, and hence the daughter?

One wonders how such a mundane thought hasn’t entered Tim’s head.

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)?

Ag

ain, Tim, you do not know the extent of what Pearl may have retained, nor what Brad Ayers did to confirm her story, because you have simply assumed Ayers would have included that in his book. Had you troubled yourself to contact Ayers with a list of questions in this regard prior to denouncing him as a “xxxx,” [which is the order in which such things are done], you might already have your answers in spades.

When my own father died, I got his watch. It was the only thing I wanted from among his effects, and my heart wouldn’t have been broken had I not received it. I most assuredly

didn’t

want the boxes of his old business correspondence, tax records, etc. Were I pressed to do so, I couldn’t begin to prove that he was born in India [no birth certificate, not unusual for that time and place], where and when he had served during the war [a chestful of medals that he regarded as meaningless, but no papers to signify what they meant, no record of when or where he volunteered, or when or where he was discharged from duty], etc. These are things I wouldn’t anticipate ever having to prove. Had he confessed something to me while on his deathbed, I might rummage through his effects to find confirmation, but then I’d be at the mercy of his

own

record-keeping and pack-rattery. Had he not been inclined to keep such things, I’d have no way to prove or disprove his confession.

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?

Try as you might, Tim, you cannot “keep [your] credibility out of it,” precisely because you have mischaracterized key details in your synopsis of hypothetical “facts.”

Re: 3) – “Castro’s involvement in the assassination.” If the only allegation made is that somebody on Castro’s staff muled money from Point A to Point B, is it not possible that such an event occurred without it necessitating “Castro’s involvement in the assassination?” People are often used or manipulated to do one thing, only to discover they have unwittingly been used to achieve something else. This is precisely why Customs personnel ask travelers if they have kept their luggage with them at all times. The suggestion is not simply that such travelers smuggled something; but that they may have been used for that purpose by others, without even knowing it.

Moreover, to bring this back to the Goldwater issue, let me suggest a hypothetical. David Morales informs Goldwater that he has a tricky problem to solve; money must be moved from Point A to Point B for an ultra-secret but ostensibly patriotic purpose. Can the Senator be of any assistance? Thinking this covert mission to be in pursuit of a legitimate but secret purpose, Goldwater complies and makes a trusted staff member responsible for the mission.

There is nothing in the foregoing that necessitates Goldwater or his staffer be witting of the mission’s purpose. After the fact, of course, either Goldwater or his staffer or both may [or may not] deduce the true purpose of that mission. What to do then? Implicate oneself in the crime of the century by going public? Not a clever move. Even if one could dodge legal ramifications for having performed such an act, one nevertheless invites retribution from David Morales and his crew. Given that Goldwater and/or his staffer might now suspect Morales of having murdered the President, does one really think Morales, et al, would for some unknown reason balk at murdering them too?

Re: 4) – You don’t know whether the “photo with Fidel” is the “sole documentation of any close relationship” because you’ve not undertaken even the most rudimentary effort to determine whether this is so. It is only your hypothetical construct, built for a transparently self-serving purpose.

Re: 5) – You don’t know if “The author cannot any longer produce a copy of the photo,” because you’ve not asked him if he still has it. It is only your hypothetical construct, built for a transparently self-serving purpose.

When the recurring self-serving purpose is so blatantly transparent, you cannot “keep [your] credibility out of it,” because it is too self-evident to hide.

[Pat Speer]

I just stumbled upon this thread. Yikes. While I don't believe Ayers' story about Pearl, I find no reason to think he made it up. It seems just as likely that there was a person named Pearl who made it up. As a result, I don't think it goes to his credibility.

The more striking point, IMO, is that while WE have no reason to believe this aspect of Ayers' story, we cannot assume from this that Ayers is a xxxx. By saying as much, Tim is, ONCE AGAIN, showing blindness regarding his Republican heroes. He'll give credit to complete utter GARBAGE stories about Fabian Escalante being in Dealey Plaza, but mention that Dillon or Goldwater may have been involved and he loses all sense of proportion. What Mrs. Eisenhower said by no means destroys Ayers' credibility, only the likelihood of the truth of "Pearl's" statements. Tim is also wrong to state that Ayers' had some obligation to leave the "Pearl" story out of his book if he couldn't prove its truth. Utter malarkey. Ayers is telling HIS story, and to tell HIS story, he needs to express his fears, his suspicions, and to share his unresolved leads. If Ayers had left his suspicion that Goldwater was somehow involved out of his book he would have been short-changing those, including myself, who bought his book to hear HIS story.

That said, I'd bet a night in Havana Tim actually communicated with Mrs. Eisenhower, as purported.

BTW, BG was a complicated fella, much like Harry Truman. They were friends with crooks and had the backing of crooks but somehow got out clean (at least officially). Even so, the state of Arizona during the Goldwater era was notoriously corrupt, much as Nevada during the McCarran era. There was just too much money to be made from shady land deals, much of them made with the help of the US Government, and the BLM. You don't become a Senator from Nevada or Arizona without the backing of "developers," almost all looking for a Government hand-out of one kind or another. (Look at Hughes in Vegas.) It's the story of the west. The states bordering on California have been dipping their fingers in the money well for decades...particularly Nevada and Arizona. The mob built up Vegas to legally get Cali money from gaming and prostitution, and the mob in league with "respectable businessman" built up Arizona to legally get Cali money from cheap land and manufactured retirement resorts, etc... It's no mistake that Joe Bananas retired in Arizona.

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, I am glad you see through the "Pearl story".

The question that remains to be determined is whether (1) someone approached Ayers, identified herself as "Pearl" (or at least Ayers used that name) and lied to Ayers; or (2) Ayers made up the entire story.

I hope this can be determined. At this point it may be premature to make a definitive conclusion which happened. I think you would agree with me that if Ayers made it up, then his credibility is indeed in question. Therefore, IMO, at least tentatively what he says about other things must be taken with a grain of salt (well, try one hundred!)

I am sure you know how the police determine the credibility of an informant: whether the informant has delivered information in the past that turned out to be true. In one sense, I think that determination is made regardless of who was the source of the information.

Thus, we have Ayers giving the Pearl story, which you agree is likely false. Now if Ayers had provided that story to the police, and the police checked it out and for instance determined that there had never been a gentleman on BG's staff meeting the description of Pearl's father, then the police would reject further information from Pearl as reliable because the information he had provided in the past turned out not to be reliable (regardless of whether the origin of the misinformation was Ayers himself or Ayers' source).

Why do I think Ayers made up the story rather than Pearl? Because, for one thing, he had a pecuniary motive to do so. Read Chapters 31 and 32 and you will see his repeated reference to having to beg, borrow (no, I won't say steal) money and I think he was even living out of his car. Could he expect the sensational "Pearl story" about BG to sell books? Why, of course he could. It is no surprise that the only chapters downloadable on the publisher's website are the two chapters re BG.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Charles Drago]

Speaking of Ayers, I'd like to share the following in what has to be a rather veiled manner.

I have it on significant authority that Ayers made a very serious pass (in the intel sense) at a "member" of the Kennedy clan during which he volunteered to open the kimono, so to speak.

The effort was determined to be, if sinister is too strong a word, agenda-rich. I'm led to understand that the offer was politely deflected.

Edited November 5, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Tim Gratz]

Before the current brouhaha started, J. Raymond Carroll had urged BK to be careful about Ayers but he did not cite any reasons.

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne stated:

My only interest in this topic is the methods employed by Tim Gratz to dismiss somebody whose story he is anxious to impeach, and the motives that drive him. Were Tim more of an even-handed individual, I doubt that I’d have bothered to raise any concerns. But Forum members know of his penchant for skewing things to his liking, rather than his record for any empirical standard. Brad Ayers has provided additional ballast in a brief against CIA complicity in the assassination, and in the process suggested that Barry Goldwater’s staff was used to facilitate same. Tim has a personal vested interest in protecting both CIA and Goldwater, hence the full frontal attack against Ayers.

Well, it is quite clear the CIA as an institution did not kill JFK. I have not seen anyone attempt to implicate its director, John McCone. So what the heck difference does it make to me if say Helms and Hunt were conspirators? If even high level CIA officers were plot participants, in no way does that damn the CIA as an institution or its current leadership. Even if Helms did it, it is quite unlikely any credible evidence will emerge against him after all these years, but should it, I'm not going to shed any tears about it. I admit Goldwater is a different story due to my adolescent admiration of him and the fact that despite his electoral rout it was the Goldwater campaign that ignited the conservative movement which led to the election of a president who won the Cold War. BG once wrote a book called "Why Not Victory?" and the movement he started helped bring about that victory. Detente as practiced by RN and as suggested by JFK in his "peace speech" did not and never would have won the Cold War; it was Reagan's build up of American military might and "Star Wars" that led to that dramatic day (eighteen years ago on Friday by the way).

I think the attack dogs would be out in force if anyone on this Forum made a serious post seriously suggesting that JFK was a Communist supporting the scenario with a strory as patently false as the story of "Pearl's father". I bet Robert would be leading the pack. Why then does he take umbridge when I am outraged by a scurrilous attack on BG?

Robert's attempt to suggest a non-sinister interpretation (ie. an interpretation that does not put BG at the center of the conspiracy) of the story of Pearl's father is ridiculous. Ayers never suggests such a possibility and more than once he states it shows BG's involvement in the assassination.

Robert writes:

Tim has lectured others here on the importance of securing second-source confirmation for one’s contentions, and insists that Ayers neglected to do so. How does Tim know such a thing? He doesn’t. He hasn’t bothered to contact Ayers, as he’s repeated assured us for the past three-plus weeks that he would do, but likewise assures us that whatever Ayers did in the way of due diligence would have been included in his book. Since it’s not included in the book, Tim deduces Ayers conducted no attempts to verify the Pearl story. How does Tim know this? He doesn’t. Why? He hasn’t bothered to consult with the source, Bradley Ayers, despite recurring promises to do so.

This is plowed ground. Robert himself wrote that he could deduce I had no second-source confirmation or I would have posted it. Yet somehow the fact that I draw the VERY SAME INFERENCE from Ayer's failure to describe any such "second-source confirmation" makes me, in his opinion, some sort of villain. Well, let's turn that around, Robert. Robert, how do you know I do not indeed yet have "second-source confirmation" and that I am just retaining it until you get far enough out on a limb of the tree of Ayers' defense? But Ayers in fact talks about his efforts to confirm Pearl's story. Does ANYONE here other than Robert think that if Ayers had confirmed the employment of Pearl's father as a staff member for BG he would not have so stated, even if he did not name his actual source? That is fantasy land. You've done a lot better before, Robert. That excuse will not wash.

Robert writes:

This is one of those head-slappingly silly comments for which Tim has become well known here at The Forum. Tim asserts that Ayers should have simply named Pearl’s father. Given what has been alleged by “Pearl,” and further given that Ayers would – one hopes – have gone to some effort to protect her identity precisely because of the nature of her allegations, is it not foolhardy to expect the author to do so, yet then print a photograph that could only serve to identify both the father, and hence the daughter?

One wonders how such a mundane thought hasn’t entered Tim’s head.

No, the wonder is that Robert would offer readers such a ridiculous ("silly") explanation. Ayers offers a rather detailed biograohy of Ayers which was read by Mrs. Judy Eisenhower who then told me in her e-mail that regardless of the progeny or lack thereof of any such man, no one fitting that description ever worked for BG. But what reader is going to go to the lengths I have to debunk the lie? By claiming he saw a photo of BG with Pearl's father and Morales, a photo that never existed, Ayers adds legitimacy to his false story.

It is clear from Ayers' writing that he ain't no dummy. By the time his new book went to press, probably any one with any inclination to buy it suspected that Morales was part of the conspiracy. If Ayers was really concerned about protecting the identity of "Pearl's father" don't you think the face of the "father" could have been obscured and then the picture of BG with Morales published? Even a picture of BG with Morales would add a scintilla of support to the story of Pearl (who I contend was immaculately conceived by the fertile mind of a financially desperate man). So what is Robert's counter-argument to this going to be? That Ayers and his publisher collectively lacked the intelligence to come up with that idea, if the photo in fact existed? Now, come on, Robert, I have slammed Ayers' honesty but search my posts here: never once have I questioned his intelligence.

The fact that the photo was not published in ANY form is clear if not conclusive evidence that it never existed. That makes Ayers, not Pearl, the xxxx. We cannot blame Pearl, a characterexisting only in Ayers' head and on the pages of his book.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

To Robert:

I would point out that I entered a post requesting your input on questions that could be put to Ayers to either verify or refute the story of Pearl's father.

I await any input from you or BK. I'll give you a day or two and then write to Ayers.

[John Simkin]

I admit Goldwater is a different story due to my adolescent admiration of him and the fact that despite his electoral rout it was the Goldwater campaign that ignited the conservative movement which led to the election of a president who won the Cold War.

You keep on saying this. Leaving aside the fact that Reagan did not overturn communism in Eastern Europe, the people who lived in these countries did so by a brief civil disobedience campaign. Even this would not have happened without the actions taken by Mikhail Gorbachev. However, you always leave out China in this debate. Remember, it was the arrival of a communist government in China that ignited the Cold War. At the time, Republicans blamed the Democratic administration for allowing this country to fall into the hands of the communists.

The communists are still in control of China and continue to deny their people human rights. It is a far worse regime than the one in Cuba that you constantly go on about.

Economists predict that China will takeover from the US as the world’s main superpower in the next few years. When that happens, will you be claiming that China won the Cold War? What about George Bush’s role in this. His mismanagement of the US economy is the main reason for America’s economic decline. Will George Bush be known as the man who lost the Cold War?

[Tim Gratz]

John wrote:

You keep on saying this. Leaving aside the fact that Reagan did not overturn communism in Eastern Europe, the people who lived in these countries did so by a brief civil disobedience campaign.

The same type of civil disobedience by the way for which that doctor in Cuba, for whom you will not lift a finger, is imprisoned by the Bull Connors of the Caribbean.

Well, if you remember Hungarians tried to fight off their oppressors in 1956 but they were over-run by Soviet tanks. Gorbachev knew Reagan would not put up with that.

Of course the Pope and Lach Walesa also contributed to the defeat of Communism. But it was the leadership of Reagan that was in the opinion of most historians at least a substantial factor (legally: causation) in the fall of the Soviet empire and the destruction of the Berlin Wall, built with impunity by the Soviets during the Kennedy administration.

Was it just coincidence that Soviet Communism collapsed while Reagan was President--in part because the Soviets wrecked their economy trying to match the arms buildup under RR?

It does not appear that China is attempting to expand Communism into other countries. But of course I decry the violation of human rights in China as well as in Cuba. So should there be an economic boycot of China until it allows its citizens at least a modicum of freedom?

[Tim Gratz]

Robert, you like challenges, I think.

Here is one for you:

Find a photograph of an undercover CIA operative taken with a sitting U.S. Senator.

I don't think undercover CIA operatives generally like to appear in photographs.

In fact, it is probably not possible for an undercover CIA operative to appear in a photo with a U. S. Senator and a third man, when the third man is a fictional character.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Robert Charles-Dunne stated:

My only interest in this topic is the methods employed by Tim Gratz to dismiss somebody whose story he is anxious to impeach, and the motives that drive him. Were Tim more of an even-handed individual, I doubt that I’d have bothered to raise any concerns. But Forum members know of his penchant for skewing things to his liking, rather than his record for any empirical standard. Brad Ayers has provided additional ballast in a brief against CIA complicity in the assassination, and in the process suggested that Barry Goldwater’s staff was used to facilitate same. Tim has a personal vested interest in protecting both CIA and Goldwater, hence the full frontal attack against Ayers.

Well, it is quite clear the CIA as an institution did not kill JFK. I have not seen anyone attempt to implicate its director, John McCone. So what the heck difference does it make to me if say Helms and Hunt were conspirators? If even high level CIA officers were plot participants, in no way does that damn the CIA as an institution or its current leadership. Even if Helms did it, it is quite unlikely any credible evidence will emerge against him after all these years, but should it, I'm not going to shed any tears about it. I admit Goldwater is a different story due to my adolescent admiration of him and the fact that despite his electoral rout it was the Goldwater campaign that ignited the conservative movement which led to the election of a president who won the Cold War. BG once wrote a book called "Why Not Victory?" and the movement he started helped bring about that victory. Detente as practiced by RN and as suggested by JFK in his "peace speech" did not and never would have won the Cold War; it was Reagan's build up of American military might and "Star Wars" that led to that dramatic day (eighteen years ago on Friday by the way).

I think the attack dogs would be out in force if anyone on this Forum made a serious post seriously suggesting that JFK was a Communist supporting the scenario with a strory as patently false as the story of "Pearl's father". I bet Robert would be leading the pack. Why then does he take umbridge when I am outraged by a scurrilous attack on BG?

Your outrage is noted, Tim. But being outraged is no licence to behave outrageously.

What is also notable, by its absence, is any legitimate attempt by you to resolve this. You

haven’t

contacted Ayers, you

haven’t

found a second source to confirm what you maintain you were told by Ms. Eisenhower, you

haven’t

provided any example of past dissembling by Ayers that might provide a precedent of his lying about anything, and you

haven't

provided us with rebuttals from other old CIA/WAVE/Military hands of anything else contained in Ayers book. That’s a fairly staggering list of things

you’ve

left undone. Instead, what we have is a knee-jerk reaction from you – “xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire!” – and a series of empty razzle-dazzle dance moves performed to retroactively justify reaching a conclusion prior to seeking or providing evidence for that conclusion.

Robert's attempt to suggest a non-sinister interpretation (ie. an interpretation that does not put BG at the center of the conspiracy) of the story of Pearl's father is ridiculous. Ayers never suggests such a possibility and more than once he states it shows BG's involvement in the assassination.

Does Ayers state Goldwater’s role was witting? Does Ayers state that Goldwater was a prime mover in making these plans, or merely a useful cog in somebody else’s machinations? There is a difference, because words still do have meaning. Even in today’s general atmosphere unfriendly to nuance, such as exists in the present black and white world of George Bush politics, answering hard questions is not the same as accepting easy answers. You have jumped to the most extreme conclusions regarding Ayers, without benefit of sufficient reflection or evidence, precisely because of your own prejudices, admitted above. Rather than fostering any confidence in your conclusions, such obvious bias only works against your own efforts.

Critical in evaluating any hypothesis are testing, not just accepting, whatever evidence which might confirm it; and confronting whatever evidence that might disprove the hypothesis. I don’t see that you’ve done either.

Robert writes:

Tim has lectured others here on the importance of securing second-source confirmation for one’s contentions, and insists that Ayers neglected to do so. How does Tim know such a thing? He doesn’t. He hasn’t bothered to contact Ayers, as he’s repeated assured us for the past three-plus weeks that he would do, but likewise assures us that whatever Ayers did in the way of due diligence would have been included in his book. Since it’s not included in the book, Tim deduces Ayers conducted no attempts to verify the Pearl story. How does Tim know this? He doesn’t. Why? He hasn’t bothered to consult with the source, Bradley Ayers, despite recurring promises to do so.

This is plowed ground. Robert himself wrote that he could deduce I had no second-source confirmation or I would have posted it. Yet somehow the fact that I draw the VERY SAME INFERENCE from Ayer's failure to describe any such "second-source confirmation" makes me, in his opinion, some sort of villain. Well, let's turn that around, Robert. Robert, how do you know I do not indeed yet have "second-source confirmation" and that I am just retaining it until you get far enough out on a limb of the tree of Ayers' defense? But Ayers in fact talks about his efforts to confirm Pearl's story. Does ANYONE here other than Robert think that if Ayers had confirmed the employment of Pearl's father as a staff member for BG he would not have so stated, even if he did not name his actual source? That is fantasy land. You've done a lot better before, Robert. That excuse will not wash.

Utter hogwash. It may be “plowed ground,” but your re-plowing it has yielded no fruit. Your strident efforts to impeach Ayers are on display, Tim. Had you any additional evidence to muster in support of those efforts, you’d have posted it. You’ve certainly resorted to posting far more preposterous reductive reasoning [such as it is] that would be wholly unnecessary if you had knockout-punch evidence of any kind.

Now you suggest that you have such evidence, but are saving it for the rainy day when you might use it against

me

? I thought Ayers was your target here, Tim. Are you really suggesting that by prevailing against me here you would score points against Ayers too? If you wish to prevail over Ayers in this, you must actually confront Ayers, not me. This is weak, even by your own rather anemic standard. Sophistry and sophistication might both come from the same root word, but there is a world of difference between them.

Robert writes:

This is one of those head-slappingly silly comments for which Tim has become well known here at The Forum. Tim asserts that Ayers should have simply named Pearl’s father. Given what has been alleged by “Pearl,” and further given that Ayers would – one hopes – have gone to some effort to protect her identity precisely because of the nature of her allegations, is it not foolhardy to expect the author to do so, yet then print a photograph that could only serve to identify both the father, and hence the daughter?

One wonders how such a mundane thought hasn’t entered Tim’s head.

No, the wonder is that Robert would offer readers such a ridiculous ("silly") explanation. Ayers offers a rather detailed biograohy of Ayers which was read by Mrs. Judy Eisenhower who then told me in her e-mail that regardless of the progeny or lack thereof of any such man, no one fitting that description ever worked for BG. But what reader is going to go to the lengths I have to debunk the lie? By claiming he saw a photo of BG with Pearl's father and Morales, a photo that never existed, Ayers adds legitimacy to his false story.

It is clear from Ayers' writing that he ain't no dummy. By the time his new book went to press, probably any one with any inclination to buy it suspected that Morales was part of the conspiracy. If Ayers was really concerned about protecting the identity of "Pearl's father" don't you think the face of the "father" could have been obscured and then the picture of BG with Morales published? Even a picture of BG with Morales would add a scintilla of support to the story of Pearl (who I contend was immaculately conceived by the fertile mind of a financially desperate man). So what is Robert's counter-argument to this going to be? That Ayers and his publisher collectively lacked the intelligence to come up with that idea, if the photo in fact existed? Now, come on, Robert, I have slammed Ayers' honesty but search my posts here: never once have I questioned his intelligence.

The fact that the photo was not published in ANY form is clear if not conclusive evidence that it never existed. That makes Ayers, not Pearl, the xxxx. We cannot blame Pearl, a characterexisting only in Ayers' head and on the pages of his book.

Sigh. Once again, Tim, this is a legitimate question for you to address to Ayers, if and when you ever get around to contacting him. Apparently you’d prefer to deal in endless hypothetical possibilities rather than actually confront your nemesis. There is no mystery there, plainly.

Since you prefer hypotheticals, let me indulge in same for a second. If Ayers does provide you with a faxed or e-mailed copy of said photo, with the father’s face excised, would you then admit you were wrong? Or would you simply claim that the excised face could have been anybody’s, but not necessarily that of Pearl’s father?

Or, if Ayers could provide a reasonable explanation to each of your questions posted here – but not addressed to Ayers, one notes – what is your default plan to excuse your record of maligning a potentially important witness? That

you

were wrong? That you’d been misinformed by your

only

source, Ms. Eisenhower? That

your

self-evident “adolescent admiration” for Goldwater overwhelmed your critical faculties? That

you

are more interested in protecting the reputations of those

you

admire than you are in solving the murder of President you didn’t admire? What, precisely, will be your climb-down from your own entirely hypothetical position vis a vis Ayers?

The time has long since passed for you to cease this endless hypothetical spit-balling of ideas. It is well past time to roll up the shirtsleeves and do the work required if you really wish to prove your case. Elaborate mental gymnastics proving nothing are no substitute for evidence that actually

does

prove something.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

To Robert:

I would point out that I entered a post requesting your input on questions that could be put to Ayers to either verify or refute the story of Pearl's father.

I await any input from you or BK. I'll give you a day or two and then write to Ayers.

You'll give us a day or two and then write to Ayers???

Oh. I see. Your failure to contact Ayers prior to calling him a xxxx three weeks ago is now somehow our fault? Because we haven't responded to something you posted yesterday?

Presumably one of our dogs ate your homework? And travelled backward in time to eat it?

Have you no self-awareness? Or just no shame?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Before the current brouhaha started, J. Raymond Carroll had urged BK to be careful about Ayers but he did not cite any reasons.

I read Ayers's first book some years ago and he seemed to me to be just another attention-seeker trying to make a buck. John Simkin reviewed his new book and described it as largely a rehash of his earlier work. In his new book he asks readers to believe that Barry Goldwater was involved in the assassination based on uncorroborated hearsay provided by a "witness" with no last name.

I just cannot think of any reason why anyone would take him seriously.

[William Kelly]

Before the current brouhaha started, J. Raymond Carroll had urged BK to be careful about Ayers but he did not cite any reasons.

I read Ayers's first book some years ago and he seemed to me to be just another attention-seeker trying to make a buck. John Simkin reviewed his new book and described it as largely a rehash of his earlier work. In his new book he asks readers to believe that Barry Goldwater was involved in the assassination based on uncorroborated hearsay provided by a "witness" with no last name.

I just cannot think of any reason why anyone would take him seriously.

Well since, as Peter points out, BEA hasn't made a cent off this edition and is invovled in a court case with Vox-Pop - who operate out of a coffee house in Brooklyn, and are hooked up with Prof. Fetzer, and he's hold up in a remote cabin and refuses interviews, there goes the assertions that Ayers is "just another attention-seeker trying to make a buck."

As Ayers mentions, the first book, The War That Never Was, was published by a company that employed William Harvey, a major character in the non-fictional narrative, and that the editor took out major sections of the book that delt with Morales and Gordon Campbell.

Now that we have those previously deleated sections, we can see why they are so sensitive.

As for Simkin's review, dismissing it as rehash, all you have to do is read the sections I have posted so far that give a very detailed overview of JMWAVE 1963 and the characters that inhabited the place, which are directly connected to what happened at Dealey Plaza.

If you want to chase Pearl, Goldwater and Morales, as Gratz has focused his attention on, in order to discredit BEA, then I encourage anyone to do so, but I think that it will lead into a morass of worms, probably intentionally so. So far, most of what Ayers says about JMWAVE has checked out, so if Pearl's story doesn't check out, that would be a first.

You may not take him seriously but others do.

No one person has the answers to all the questions about the assassination, but those witnesses who do have some select, significant pieces, sometimes don't even know what it is they know that is so important.

Of course people who dismiss witnesses as unworthy of serious consideration never leave them alone and always come back when their worth becomes evident.

Ayers is one of Shackley's guys, and reported everything to Shackley and got Shackley's okay for everything he did or said, so that should be more of a consideration is evaluating BEA's information than dismissing him for selfgrandizement.

When asked about Ayers, Shackley confirmed everything BEA said, and acknowledged that Ayers was one of thirty USA officers used to train the Cuban commandos.

If that is true, then why are we depending on Ayers, where are the 29 other guys who can tell us all about JMWAVE, how they operatated and who was there?

Ayers is in the same category as Hunt, Sturgis, Hemming, Plumley and all those guys who passed through JMWAVE, and you have to take what they all say with more than a grain of salt. And you can't depend on any of them.

For me Ayers is a window to a world that served as the basic background to Dealey Plaza, and if you want to figure it out, that's one of the windows you have to go through.

BK