Bradley Ayers' THE ZENITH SECRET is out..

[Gene Kelly]

Bill:

Quick note...we are 'neighbors' of sorts and share some interests. I'm a big Stones fan. I live in the Philadelphia surburbs (Lansdale) and am planning a wedding for my daughter next spring in Somers Point. I read your posts with interest and respect. Regards- Gene Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

Robert Charles-Dunne, or BK, once wondered how I knew Judith Eisenhower was who she claimed to be and suggested I needed confirmation of who she was.

Well, I just found reference to her on this web-site (from the "Arizona Republic" newspaper):

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special2...goldwater2.html

So there you go.

[William Kelly]

Bill:

Quick note...we are 'neighbors' of sorts and share some interests. I'm a big Stones fan. I live in the Philadelphia surburbs (Lansdale) and am planning a wedding for my daughter next spring in Somers Point. I read your posts with interest and respect. Regards- Gene Kelly

Yo! Gene, How ya doin?

Maybe we should have a conference or symposium in Philly?

Or Somers Point? I was trying to keep my Point life a secret.

Gotcha on the acoustics.

Is that Gratz sticking pins in me?

Thanks for reading my stuff,

BK

Edited October 17, 2007 by William Kelly

[Gene Kelly]

Meet you at the Crab Trap

[Tim Gratz]

In his Post #68 Robert Charles-Dunne writes in his typical sarcastic style:

And the very first thing that Tim did was to seek a second confirmation that Judy Eisenhower is who she claimed to be, that she was indeed BG's chief of staff in the pertinent time period, that she did indeed know everyone in BG's rather large social circle, that she could indeed make sweeping declarations of who BG did and didn't know, based solely upon the existence of a daughter whose name may or may not have been Pearl. Oh, Tim didn't do that, or else he would have provided us with chapter and verse on same in his posts? My what a completely predictable and telling oversight.

I recently located BG's 1988 autobiography. In it there are extensive references to Judy Eisenhower, who started working for BG as his secretary and later became his chief of staff and who married Earl Eisenhower, the nephew of Dwight David Eisenhower. There are references to Mrs. Eisenhower in the acknowledgements and throughout the book.

I also want to reiterate how totaly misleading Robert Charles-Dunne is. Ayers wrote that Pearl's father had "worked on BG's staff for 20 years or so. Clearly Judy Rooney later Judy Eisenhower knew everyone who worked for BG. In fact, as his chief of staff she was essentially his employer. And yet Robert wonders whether Judy Eisenhower knew "everyone in BG's rather large social circle", an obvious irrelevancy.

Folks, the deceptiveness of that paragraph shows why you need to be quite careful about the arguments of Robert Charles-Dunne. (See also Post #93 above for another example of his duplicity.)

Also please note that neither Bill nor Robert has commented on the fact that the mafia concept of "omerta" completely destroys the plausibility that the mafia would use an "honest" member of BG's Senate staff to transmit a suitcase of dirty money from a mafia leader in Vegas to Johnny Rosselli in New Orleans.

Of course the argument of Charles-Dunne that Mrs. Eisenhower might not be who she claimed to be is also absolutely ridiculous on its face.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, a friendly reminder that you have not yet answered my query in Post #94.

Thanks!

[William Kelly]

Bill, a friendly reminder that you have not yet answered my query in Post #94.

Thanks!

Tim,

What's the question again?

I can't find Post #94 - Please repeat.

Bk

[Tim Gratz]

No problem, my friend (and I hope we can be long distance "friends despite disagreement on several issues). Here was the post.

Bill wrote:

AND IN ADDITION, YOU ACCUSATION THAT BEA IS INTERESTED IN SELLING HIS BOOKS IS ALSO FALSE, SINCE HE IS HAS A NEW YORK LAWYER AND IS TAKING HIS PUBLISHER TO COURT AND IS NOT COOPERATING WITH THEIR MARKETING OR PROMOTING THE BOOK IN ANY WAY.

Bill, do you seriously Ayers spent years on his second book without any interest in selling it? What kind of nonsense is THAT? That equals some of the other nonsensical statements you have made in this thread.

Ayers may have a conflict with his current publisher but that does not mean that when he crafted Chapters 31 and 32 he was not interested in selling his book!

SO WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A SENSATIONAL CHARGE IMPLICATING A FAMOUS POLITICIAN AND ONE TIME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WOULD PROBABLY HELP SELL HIS BOOK? NOTICE THOSE ARE THE CHAPTERS AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, I had also asked (Post #92) if you agreed with this statement re the ethics of a non-fiction writer:

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

I suspect you recognize the author of that statement.

[William Kelly]

Bill, I had also asked (Post #92) if you agreed with this statement re the ethics of a non-fiction writer:

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

I suspect you recognize the author of that statement.

Of course I agree with it.

It is a paraphrase of G. Kintson Clark, from A Critical Historian (1967)

The most frequent violators among those who write about the assassination of President Kennedy are G. Robert Blakey, Gus Russo, Tom Waldman and others who promote a theory or have an agenda.

BK

Edited October 21, 2007 by William Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

Bill:

The quote comes directly from the affidavit of Bradley Ayers that you posted.

And my point of course was that Ayers violated his own rules:

1. He does not properly identify his source so it can be verified. It has even been claimed by those defending him that "Pearl" might not

be the actual first name of his source. Under certain circumstances a writer might need not to identify his or her source but if he or

she is giving the source a different name, he should obviously so state. (I have my doubts if "Pearl" even existed.)

2. He says a writer should present all accumulated evidence. In this case I certainly believe that imposed an obligation on Ayers to

determine if the man identified by "Pearl" was actually a BG staff member. It appears he never even bothered to do that. Had he

done so, he certainly would have reported it.

3. By failing to verify the employment of "Pearl's father" he also deliberately disregarded pertinent information.

In summary, Ayers violated almost every single rule he himself stated should apply to "non-fiction writers". Perhaps that is because he is not in fact a writer of "non-fiction".

Edited October 21, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Bill:

The quote comes directly from the affidavit of Bradley Ayers that you posted.

And my point of course was that Ayers violated his own rules:

1. He does not properly identify his source so it can be verified. It has even been claimed by those defending him that "Pearl" might not

be the actual first name of his source. Under certain circumstances a writer might need not to identify his or her source but if he or

she is giving the source a different name, he should obviously so state. (I have my doubts if "Pearl" even existed.)

2. He says a writer should present all accumulated evidence. In this case I certainly believe that imposed an obligation on Ayers to

determine if the man identified by "Pearl" was actually a BG staff member. It appears he never even bothered to do that. Had he

done so, he certainly would have reported it.

3. By failing to verify the employment of "Pearl's father" he also deliberately disregarded pertinent information.

In summary, Ayers violated almost every single rule he himself stated should apply to "non-fiction writers". Perhaps that is because he is not in fact a writer of "non-fiction".

Tim,

Ayers is not the journalist - he's a witness who is reporting what he knows.

He's not an historian or journalist who must live up to those ideals.

And the chapter on Pearl and her father and Goldwater is just a small part of the book, the most significant aspects having to do with JMWAVE.

Why you are harping on this aspect of the story I don't know.

Talbot and Morley were bankrolled by The New Yorker Mag to go down there and check out the Morales connections - of which this is a part - and they took a kill fee instead of publishing what they learned.

And did you read The Bayo/Pawley Affair article?

Goldwater is right there at the beginning - identified as the chief beneficiary of the mission if it had been successful.

So the Goldwater connection, especially as it has to do with Morales, is most certainly an area worthy of further research.

I don't know about chasing Pearl however.

She may have been a black herring, as she inserted herself in the story and only Brad and you seem to be interested in it.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Ayers has written two books and you do not consider him a journalist? No doubt you do so that you can excuse him from the normal ethical standards applied to journalists.

Ayers claims that one of the facilitators of the assassination (maybe even its primary sponsor) was a candidate for the presidency and you do not consider that to be THE MOST significant part of the book? You state you are not even interested in Pearl's alleged story, or should I say the story of the alleged Pearl.

You wrote:

I don't know about chasing Pearl however.

She may have been a black herring, as she inserted herself in the story and only Brad and you seem to be interested in it.

That statement indicates to me that you do not believe the Pearl story any more than I do. Come on, 'fess up, Bill!

Regarding the Bayo/Pawley mission, I guess if it would have succeeded it would have finished JFK politically. So what has that got to do with the asassination? Goldwater's race for the presidency was destroyed by the assassination. So he no doubt would have benefitted by the success of Operation Tilt but his presidential bid was destroyed by the "operation" in Dallas.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[William Kelly]

Ayers has written two books and you do not consider him a journalist? No doubt you do so that you can excuse him from the normal ethical standards applied to journalists.

TIM, BRADLEY AYERS IS NOT A JOURNALIST, HE'S A SOLDIER AND A WITNESS TO JMWAVE ACTIVITIES. HE'S A WITNESS WHO WRITES ABOUT WHAT HE KNOWS. HE DOES NOT TRY TO WRITE A COMPLETE HISTORY OF JMWAVE, HE JUST TELLS HIS STORY.

Ayers claims that one of the facilitators of the assassination (maybe even its primary sponsor) was a candidate for the presidency and you do not consider that to be THE MOST significant part of the book? You state you are not even interested in Pearl's alleged story, or should I say the story of the alleged Pearl.

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

You wrote:

I don't know about chasing Pearl however.

She may have been a black herring, as she inserted herself in the story and only Brad and you seem to be interested in it.

That statement indicates to me that you do not believe the Pearl story any more than I do. Come on, 'fess up, Bill!

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I BELIEVE. I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

YOU'RE THE ONE WHO IS MAKING SUCH A BIG FUSS OVER SOMETHING YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE. I DON'T THINK ITS IMPORTANT. IF YOU DO, CHECK IT OUT SOME MORE AND LET US KNOW WHAT YOU FIND OUT.

Regarding the Bayo/Pawley mission, I guess if it would have succeeded it would have finished JFK politically. So what has that got to do with the asassination? Goldwater's race for the presidency was destroyed by the assassination. So he no doubt would have benefitted by the success of Operation Tilt but his presidential bid was destroyed by the "operation" in Dallas.

DIDN'T THAT GUY MCDONALD WORK FOR GOLDWATER?

MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING MORE THERE.

BK

[Tim Gratz]

Bill wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

YES OR NO.

Bill, you wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Edited October 21, 2007 by Tim Gratz