CIA's Remote Viewing Program and Watergate, The Parallel CIA Universes—1971, 1972, and Beyond Options

[Robert Charles-D...]

I didn't realize Robert Charles-Dunne has been away, too. (Next some people may start speculating whether we have ever been seen together. Of course, I use the term "people" only in the loosest, most catholic sense.)

Ashton

Oddly [or perhaps not], I had been wondering something similar. Given Charles Drago's appearance here during your absence, and the similar pithy wit and style of both posters, I was about to begin searching for a photo of the two of you together. [Perhaps I am a "people" person after all....]

But I see you two are corresponding with each other here, so I'm working on an alternate hypothesis.

Welcome back.

[Charles Drago]

Easy, Robert.

The last thing I need is for John Armstrong to start researching my family tree.

He's likely to find that I still live in it.

And since my middle name is Robert, and my initials are CRD ...

Easy, John.

Coincidences happen.

A Friend (or Two)

[Guest_David Guyatt_*]

Good to meet you at last, Mr. Gray.

I said:

Quote:

Would you not consider that occult techniques exactly duplicate those identified by you as RV/RI, are far older and might it not be the case that the CIA techniques learned from Swann, Putoff and others actually derived from occult studies these gentlemen had been coached in?

Unquote

You said:

Quote:

1) Your major premise, "occult techniques exactly duplicate those identified...as RV/RI," is without foundation and fatally flawed. The closest thing ever even mentioned in occult or paranormal literature is "astral walking," and it's about as close to RV as grits are to gravel.

Unquote

Firstly, I would mention that I posed a question to you rather than presented a “major premise”. Hence my paragraph began with the words” “Would you not consider that” and then continued with: “occult techniques exactly duplicate those identified...as RV/RI” finally closing with a question mark.

I posed this question in order to more fully understand your viewpoint.

But onwards.

Could you elucidate what it is that you know about so-called “astral walking” that convinces you that the differences between these two systems are “as grits are to gravel”? Have you, for example, been “astral walking”? Have you studied Jung’s work on the Collective Unconscious and his system of “Active Imagination”? Have you personally engaged in RV/RI? What is the extent of your knowledge of esoteric/occult techniques and meanings?

That’s five questions. Sorry to bombard you.

To further elucidate my above question (since it is a complex subject), my thinking here is not in terms of the precise techniques used by either (as it seems that the modus operandi is varied and quite pliable), but is rather more directed to the results gained --- and thus the accessibility (more or less) to the same time (less) medium used to gain it.

The assumption here is that it is largely unimportant what actual technique is adopted for use ( as there appear to be very many the world over), but all seem to access the same medium or repository for their answers. For the sake of providing a usable term, Jung named this the “Collective Unconscious”.

You also said:

Quote:

2) The idea that CIA would use three highly-trained Scientologists (Swann, Puthoff, and Pat Price) as the utter core of their RV program, not because they were Scientologists, but because of some vague other, older "occult studies these gentlemen had been coached in" (for which, by the way, there is not a scent or scintilla of evidence) is too frivolous to entertain.

Unquote

‘Fraid I’m entertaining it never-the-less. Time will tell whether it's a frivolous or frutiless endeavour.

My immediate focus is this time line: Parsons was an adept of the German occult school, OTO, having been chosen by Crowley to head the Agape Lodge in 1942. Parsons and Hubbard engaged in occult rituals in 1946. Hubbard established his basic principles of Scientology in 1952. Hubbard founded of the Church of Scientology in 1953. Esoteric schools are, by definition, applied religious philosophies, as is Scientology - to coin Hubbard’s descriptive words. (I’ve extracted the last two dates from the Wikipedia entry on Scientology, so please correct me if they are incorrect).

The scintilla of evidence is to be more accurate a matrix of connections. These seem to me to be the direct connections between known occultist Jack Parsons, known Jack Parsons occult associate, Ron Hubbard (or pretend occultist in your view – albeit that he must have had some knowledge to fool Parsons who we assume was no fool), and Ron Hubbard and Scientology and Scientology and Swann, Puthoff and Pat Price --- “three highly-trained Scientoligists.”

I note this entry in Wikipedia:

Quote:

In formulating Scientology, Hubbard appears to have drawn liberally from a wide variety of pre-existing ideas, though he provided little specific citation of, or commentary on, his sources. The Church of Scientology presents Hubbard's work as completely original, reflected in the fact that Scientologists refer to Hubbard himself as "Source."

Unquote

What is Hubbard’s “Source” of belief for becoming Scientology’s “Source” I wonder? Do you know?

I am most interested about your evidence that Hubbard was with ONI. I had heard this stated as opinion but have seen no evidence in support of it. Would you be kind enough to offer such evidence if it is available? I am happy to proceed privately under terms of strict confidentiality, if doing so publicly creates difficulties for you. Again, my interest is genuine in nature and nothing more than seeking to understand these complexities more deeply.

I have an interest in Parsons and numerous former OSS officers he was close to, many of whom had occult interests. My hypothesis is that these occult connections may connect back to Nazi occult philosophy on the one hand. On the other hand, well, they go back a lot further than that.

It is often overlooked that a major symbol for the Knights Templar was the human skull known as Baphomet, whereas the SS wore the insignia of the death’s head -- a human skull. OTO claims to be a German based Templar continuation. On human skulls, I also note Shakespeare’s “Yorick” from his play Hamlet.

Rosicrucians don’t you love them…

David

[John Simkin]

I didn't realize Robert Charles-Dunne has been away, too. (Next some people may start speculating whether we have ever been seen together. Of course, I use the term "people" only in the loosest, most catholic sense.)

Ashton

Oddly [or perhaps not], I had been wondering something similar. Given Charles Drago's appearance here during your absence, and the similar pithy wit and style of both posters, I was about to begin searching for a photo of the two of you together. [Perhaps I am a "people" person after all....]

But I see you two are corresponding with each other here, so I'm working on an alternate hypothesis.

Welcome back.

A few months ago I received an email from a member who claimed Robert Charles-Dunne and Ashton Gray was the same man.

[Ashton Gray]

Will your Watergate book by chance be available electronically?

"Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back"!

Hi, Dawn, and thanks for the warm welcome back(s).

Yes, the book will be available as an eBook.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

Good to meet you at last, Mr. Gray.

The pleasure is mutual, low sweeping bows and genuflections, etc. Now let's get down to cases.

I posed a question to you rather than presented a “major premise”. Hence my paragraph began with the words” “Would you not consider that” and then continued with: “occult techniques exactly duplicate those identified...as RV/RI” finally closing with a question mark.

I posed this question in order to more fully understand your viewpoint.

And I trust that now you do.

Could you elucidate what it is that you know about so-called “astral walking” that convinces you that the differences between these two systems are “as grits are to gravel”? Have you, for example, been “astral walking”? Have you studied Jung’s work on the Collective Unconscious and his system of “Active Imagination”? Have you personally engaged in RV/RI? What is the extent of your knowledge of esoteric/occult techniques and meanings?

That’s five questions. Sorry to bombard you.

Bombard away. I'll answer as I see fit.

There is nothing to be served by some long dissertation on "astral walking" (or "astral projection") here since the literature and internet are full of it for anyone seriously interested enough in the subject to pursue it in depth. What is most pertinent to this discussion is that "astral walking" always has been considered, even by its most ardent proponents, as more or less a hit-and-miss proposition, with the experiencer often at complete effect of the phenomenon: as much a spectator as a participant. Then there is a great deal of folderol about a silver cord and other bric-a-brac that needs no further bloviating here.

By contrast, Hubbard posited complete knowing control by the spiritual being (called in the texts the "thetan," after the Greek symbol for "thought") in stably operating entirely exterior to a physical body, with complete knowing perception (in 52 perceptics) and even ability to affect the material universe while operating exterior, and purported to provide very specific techniques by which any person could gain these abilities. The courses/levels in which these techniques were disclosed and used were (are) called the "Operating Thetan (OT) Levels."

In fact, according to recent research I've been doing, at the time the CIA issued the secret contract to use Scientology OTs Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Pat Price, there was a chart that had been issued by Hubbard that very unequivocally stated the promised "States Attained" for all Scientology levels. The "state attained" for OT Level VI was:

Ability to operate freely as a thetan exterior and to act pan-determinedly; extends the influence of the thetan to the universe of others.

There hardly could be a more precise statement of exactly what CIA was attempting to "develop" when they hired three Scientologists--every one of them having attained the level of OT VI. Isn't that a sweet coincidence?

So, as I said: RV is about as close to "astral walking" as grits are to gravel.

I've studied Jung in depth. He is a babbling loon.

My own spiritual experiences are not your province.

You also said:

Quote:

2) The idea that CIA would use three highly-trained Scientologists (Swann, Puthoff, and Pat Price) as the utter core of their RV program, not because they were Scientologists, but because of some vague other, older "occult studies these gentlemen had been coached in" (for which, by the way, there is not a scent or scintilla of evidence) is too frivolous to entertain.

Unquote

‘Fraid I’m entertaining it never-the-less. Time will tell whether it's a frivolous or frutiless endeavour.

Entertain it all you want. Do it without engaging me, though.

Parsons and Hubbard engaged in occult rituals in 1946.

Document it or retract it. And I happen to know that you have no option but to retract it, since what you're trotting out here is nothing but a lurid anecdotal claim of a homosexual ritual--eighth degree ritual of the Ordo Templi Orientiis--the validity of which anecdotal claim isn't worthy of the yellowest gossip rag that ever infected a printing press. I don't come to these forums to foment fishwife gossip.

It also has absolutely zero to do with the Scientology OT Levels that were in place in 1972 when the CIA contracted three Scientology OTs to "develop" a means for out-of-body perception--the exact abilities that the Scientology OT Levels that each of the three had of late done promised to deliver.

It also has zero to do with the fact that Puthoff was NSA before he went into Scientology, got the OT Levels, then entered into a secret contract with CIA to "develop" the exact same thing he had just studied in Scientology.

That's the topic at issue.

Hubbard established his basic principles of Scientology in 1952.

Codswollop. The primary principles were set forth in a work called "Excalibur" in 1939.

What is Hubbard’s “Source” of belief for becoming Scientology’s “Source” I wonder?

Well, if I wondered any such thing, I'd go to the source materials and read it and find out--not to Operation Mockingbird's "Wikipedia" <SPIT!>

So what I wonder is how much you really want the answer to that question.

Meanwhile, here's a very specific question for you: what would it take to get you back on topic?

I am most interested about your evidence that Hubbard was with ONI. I had heard this stated as opinion but have seen no evidence in support of it. Would you be kind enough to offer such evidence if it is available? I am happy to proceed privately under terms of strict confidentiality, if doing so publicly creates difficulties for you.

We'll keep it in the forum. I don't play the "strict confidentiality" game. All data I have in my possession is broadly distributed as soon as I get it as a matter of stringent and inviolable policy.

Here is one record of Hubbard's service as an intelligence officer, from his personnel record:

SHIPS AND STATIONS
Office of the Naval Attaché
American Legation,
Melbourne, Australia

PERIODS
18 DEC 41-02 APR 42

DUTIES
Intelligence Officer

He also was an intelligence officer at the Office of Cable Censor in New York from the beginning of May 1942 until 24 June 1942--which happens to be an interesting time period relative to certain charges and seizures related to a Nazi banking scheme in the United States in 1942. But all that is for another time and place...

Again, my interest is genuine in nature and nothing more than seeking to understand these complexities more deeply.

Of course it is. Who could doubt you.

The point of the thread, though, lest we forget, is that the CIA, in great secrecy, hired three Scientology OTs beginning on 1 October 1972 to develop a secret program for them that was an exact carbon copy of the clearly stated abilities of the Scientology OT Levels.

Even Crowley himself couldn't conjure that fact away.

Ashton

[Guest_David Guyatt_*]

Thank you Mr. Gray.

What an interesting Banzai gentleman you are. I think we’ll get along fine.

Let’s tango!:

By my count, when reading your response, four out of five questions I posed you’ve failed to properly address. You’ve declined to answer these, you say, because you’ve elected to treat them as personal spiritual matters (the subject of Scientology apparently not being “spiritual” as you’re more than happy to discuss that at length). Have you ever read “Double Standards” btw?

I have absolutely zero interest in intruding into your spiritual state. Believe me. But the questions were really directed at discovering the extent of what you actually know versus the extent of what you actually say you know. I harbour the suspicion that you realised this was my purpose and thus ducked answering. A tidy trick, but older and more chewed than a dog’s biscuit.

Since it is my right to make assumptions (and I’d do it anyway), I have elected to assume that the three questions I posed, which you decline to respond to (the word “answer” being inappropriate in this case) were, “no” - I’ve not been astral walking, “no” – I’ve not studied Jung’s system of Active Imagination, and “no” I’ve not personally engaged in RV/RI.

And what little you do appear to know about astral walking is entirely gained, it seems, from the internet. In other words another ciphered “no”

And your familiarity with Jung’s work - that you’ve studied “in depth” (I wasn’t aware they’d serialised it in comics) clearly swept right over you’re the top of your head. Perhaps you were bending down inspecting your nether regions at the time? Perhaps this is your habitual position of repose?

So it totals zero answers out of five questions.

Not really a confidence booster for someone professing knowledge and writing on these subjects is it. But I like your style anyway.

On Parsons and Hubbard engaging in an occult ritual, I believe I already cited the source. But I’ll cite it again for the slow witted: Peter Levenda’s Sinister Forces – Book One. But you’d hate reading him, as he sometimes allows fact to spoil his work.

The OTO homosexual degree is the XI degree, not the VIIIth. And while I am bolstered in the knowledge that you don’t like to engage in fishwife’s gossip, I note that even they, from time to time, get their facts right.

Whether or not an early Occult-Hubbard axis has anything to do with later Scientological techniques used in CIA contracted OOB activity remains to be seen. Claiming, as you do, that it has “absolutely zero” to do with this, merely seems to demonstrate the degree of your hermetically sealed mind on the matter.

And since I am now fortunate to have your permission to entertain thoughts other than your own, then I believe I mostly will – although it’s bound to be a struggle. And don’t worry, I promise to try to keep any facts I come across at a distance from you. Don’t want to go spoiling your day, eh.

When I remove your defensive bombast from all that you say (and there’s a lot of it, as you know), you actually do not appear to say very much at all. Which speaks volumes.

Regarding the origin of Hubbard’s “Source” of Scientology. I was interested to learn that he wrote a “philosophic” manuscript called “Excalibur” and thank you for that fragment. However, it appears he wrote this in 1938, not 1939 as you state [http://lron.hubbard.org/pg006.html ]. Facts are such slippery things, don’t you find… I‘m sure you do. All the time.

Had you but taken the time to read even the comic version of Jung’s work, rather than just scan the pictures, blow bubble-gum and squeeze the chicken, I think the significance of the title “Excalibur” would not have escaped even you. On the other hand maybe it would. Jung, of course, wrote extensively on “philosophers”. But let’s not allow that intrusive fact to intrude into your world, eh. Don’t want to spoil the subliminal experience of your daily nether-region-spotting Yoga sutra do we.

On the ONI issue, you still have to demonstrate that Hubbard actually was working on behalf of the ONI in regard to his occult association with Parsons. Sorry to ask you to do this, but thus far your fact checking hasn’t been very convincing, has it. And since it is your avowed aim to furnish this material to all we lucky souls present on this forum, then please provide all the necessary citations -- and a detailed explication if you have one available.

Meanwhile, relying on ordinary academic protocols in an educational forum, it remains quite reasonable to [again] pose the question: where did Hubbard gain his apparent esoteric knowledge? Did it jump out of the aether and bite him in the ass, or was it transmitted to him from others, and if so, who were they.

Clearly, you don’t know.



David

This post has been edited by David Guyatt: Sep 21 2007, 05:25 PM

[Ashton Gray]

I think we’ll get along fine.

I'm less sanguine about the prospects.

You have the extraordinarily peculiar notion that I have some obligation to follow you off down every off-topic, irrelevant trail and rabbit hole you twitch and dance toward, as though this were a drunken Rhumba line you were personally leading. Such self-serving casuistry always is embarrassing to watch, but it's also going to continue to make you a very frustrated boy.

Let’s tango!

And here I thought you favored the Rhumba. Thanks, but you go ahead and continue to strut and pose all over the landscape by yourself. You're doing a fine job of it.

On Parsons and Hubbard engaging in an occult ritual, I believe I already cited the source. But I’ll cite it again for the slow witted: Peter Levenda’s Sinister Forces – Book One.

I'm very grateful for this stipulation. It is generous of you. It establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you cannot distinguish a rumor source from a mere rumor monger. Here's a hint—for the slow witted, doncha' know: Levenda is not the rumor source. Somehow, I just know you can figure the rest out from there. Please don't let me down. (For bonus points, see if you also can figure out which one you are in this instance—rumor source, or mere rumor monger. I know you can do it. You're free to get help from friends or relatives.)

Meanwhile, I'll continue to ignore in vast wholesale boatloads your off-topic irrelevancies. In your entire off-topic tirade, you only managed to touch on a few points that could be considered even vaguely relevant to this topic—and the relevance even of those few points is vague indeed.

Regarding the origin of Hubbard’s “Source” of Scientology. I was interested to learn that he wrote a “philosophic” manuscript called “Excalibur” and thank you for that fragment. However, it appears he wrote this in 1938, not 1939 as you state [http://lron.hubbard.org/pg006.html ]. Facts are such slippery things, don’t you find… I‘m sure you do. All the time.

Yes, facts are slippery things—which is why I check them, unlike you and whoever is responsible for the page at the link you posted, which falsely claims that Hubbard wrote Excalibur "during the first weeks of 1938."

According to the author of the work himself (emphasis added):

"The Axioms were basically written on a summary of information which began in November of 1938. And the basic Axioms of Dianetics were written at that time. It's interesting that the material at that time was called Scientology. It appeared in an unpublished manuscript called 'Excalibur.'" —L. Ron Hubbard taped lecture of 10 November 1952, "Introduction: the Q List and Beginning of Logics"

Given that the work, also according to Hubbard himself, was approximately 125,000 words, and based on other ancillary evidence, it is my good faith and perfectly reasonable belief that the work, begun in November 1938—not in "the first weeks of 1938"—was in fact completed during the first weeks of 1939.

But please don't let any of this rip away your security blanket of superiority. By all means, accept the 1938 date, embrace it, propagate it. I even will stipulate it, while letting others do the math themselves with these facts and draw their own conclusion.

And I even deeply appreciate your own stipulation that Hubbard had the principles laid down as early as 1938. See what a fair-minded guy I am at heart?

On the ONI issue, you still have to demonstrate that Hubbard actually was working on behalf of the ONI in regard to his occult association with Parsons.

Ummm, David: just between us girls—your slip is showing. The record is still sitting just a few messages back in this thread that the only thing you asked me to do was document that Hubbard had been in Naval Intelligence. I did. Now you're trying to move the goal-posts. {Tcht!} I would have thought such petty, sulking sophistry beneath you, Dave.

Also, just for the record (and make yourself a little Post-It note to stick on the end of your nose for this one): I don't "have to" do a damn thing. You don't dictate what I do. In fact, you might ought to bypass the Post-It note, and get that one tatooed on your forearm.

Meanwhile, here is precisely what I said I could and would do—which you, as night follows day, have tried to twist into something else:

I can document for you that Hubbard had been in Naval Intelligence during the War, and I further can document that Hubbard was not officially and finally mustered out of the Navy until 1950, and I further can document that Naval Intelligence attempted to order Hubbard back to active duty in 1950 in order to seize control of Dianetics.

Now, I've already done "document for you that Hubbard had been in Naval Intelligence during the War."

As for "Hubbard was not officially and finally mustered out of the Navy until 1950," as well as "Naval Intelligence attempted to order Hubbard back to active duty in 1950," read 'em and weep:

"You know, I resigned from the United States Navy in 1950 when they tried to pull me in and put me to work on the subject of research in the human mind...in 1950 they tried to kidnap me. They told me that I would be returned to active service to do this research if I did not return to do so as—in a civilian capacity at high pay... . I'm supposed to soft-pedal this. I'm not supposed to say anything about the Bureau of Naval Intelligence. ...I was once an officer of the Bureau of Naval Intelligence and of course, they have my full record. So every time anybody tries to clobber one of our organizations with being a Red organization or communist associated or something like that, it runs through the files and runs into this fact." —L. Ron Hubbard taped lecture of 26 May 1961 "On Auditing"

***

"You're probably not aware of the fact that before the incorporation papers of the HDRF [Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation] were filed in 1950, the Office of Naval Intelligence right here in Washington, DC, threatened to call me to active duty to use what I knew about the mind.

"...A very amusing story connected with that attempt to seize Dianetics, a very amusing story from my standpoint anyway. Months and months and months before I had decided that the Navy and I had come to a crossroads and I had requested permission from the secretary of the Navy to resign my commission—my commission had been hanging fire since the end of World War II—and he had granted permission. Now, that's the lengthiest amount of time consumed, trying to get a letter into a government office and get an answer to it. See, that's pretty long. And I already had that.

"So this fellow, this officer from the Office of Naval Research, came to see me right here in Washington and he wanted me to go on as a civilian employee in order to use what I knew of the mind to make men more suggestible. And I smiled a feline smile. And I said, "No." And he smiled like something out of Faust, and he said to me, "Well, all you have to do is say 'No' and I will call you back to active duty because you still are an officer of the United States Navy." And with that purr he exited.

"So I dived into my briefcase and pulled forth the secretary's permission. I dashed down here and found out there was actually a naval command in this area—it's called the Potomac River Naval Command, I don't know what they run. Once I think they tried to run the battleship Missouri. But there it sat down there, and it had an admiral in charge of it and everything, and I found out that my papers were resident in two places. People thought I belonged in Washington, in Washington, and people in New York thought I belonged in New York, and I had two sets of papers. This admiral that had come to see me thought I was totally out of New York. So I went down here to the Washington Navy Yard, the Potomac River Naval Command, and I got my resignation accepted.

"And Thursday the admiral came back to see me, and he says, "Well?" And I said, "Well?" Fastest resignation on record. There wasn't anything he could do about it then. And I went back up to Elizabeth, New Jersey and the HDRF, the first research foundation, was formed, and we went happily on our way just throwing it all over the place." —L. Ron Hubbard taped lecture, "How We Have Addressed the Problem of the Mind"

Evidence in support of these primary-source accounts includes, but is not limited to:

1. A Letter of Resignation from L. Ron Hubbard to the Secretary of the Navy dated 14 November 1947 (not long after the Parsons op)

2. A letter from Chief of Naval Personnel to L. Ron Hubbard dated 18 December 1947, the text of which is not available, but which is referenced in a 19 February 1948 letter from L. Ron Hubbard withdrawing his resignation (see 3. below).

3. A letter from L. Ron Hubbard dated 19 February 1948 withdrawing his request for resignation from the Naval Reserve, referencing a letter to Hubbard from Chief of Naval Personnel dated 18 December 1947 (see 2. above)

4. A Letter of Resignation from L. Ron Hubbard to the Secretary of the Navy dated 27 May 1950.

Therefore, at all times relevant to the Parsons op, L. Ron Hubbard was not finally and formally out of the Navy, and was not until 1950, exactly as I stated. At all relevant times he had been listed as "separated" from the Navy under the weary cover of "medical reasons."

And now I have documented exactly and precisely what I said I could document, like Babe Ruth pointing to the right field fence and putting it out of the park.

So far, you've documented nothing at all.

where did Hubbard gain his apparently esoteric knowledge? Did it jump out of the aether and bite him in the ass, or was it transmitted to him from others, and if so, who were they.

I don't care if it was handed down to him on a satin pillow by Busbee Berkeley girls dressed as avocados, cascading down a spiral staircase from the sky-high palace of the One True God.

It's irrelevant to what the CIA did in 1972 by hiring three Scientology OTs, and the relevance of that to CIA's simultaneous connection to Watergate, which is the topic of this thread, and which is precisely why it's in the Watergate forum. I know: I started the topic.

And you're absurdly, obscenely off-topic.

If you're so obsessed with the origins of Scientology and with astral walking and with Crowley and black magic and Carl "My Dinky is a Flag Pole, Please Salute" Jung, there are hundreds of forums where your fountains of unfounded speculation and gossip-mongering would not only be on-topic, they would be enthusiastically embraced.

This isn't one of them. This is an educational forum. This is THE WATERGATE FORUM.

Therefore, I'm going to ask you one more time, nicely, to try to figure out where you are and to honor the forum and the topic by remaining on-topic. So allow me just this once, gently, to direct your attention pertinently to the title I so obligingly put on this topic at the very start, so even a blithering idiot couldn't miss it:

CIA's Remote Viewing Program and Watergate

There. Did that help orient you?

I do hope so.

If you have the Bunny Hop in your dance repertoire, you can hoppity-hop-hop your show over to some paranormal forum and dance the night away.

Of course, if your actual agenda and purpose is to do everything you can to disrupt this thread and to deflect attention away from the actions of the CIA and its hiring of three Scientology OTs in 1972 to develop its "Remote Viewing" program I figure you'll be back with another spastically off-topic dance, pointing fingers and toes at L. Ron Hubbard and Black Magick and Jack Parsons and me, and flinging every dirty, irrelevant piece of of-topic gossip and garbage you can dredge up and fling.

What's it going to be?

Ashton Gray

This post has been edited by Ashton Gray: Sep 21 2007, 08:12 PM

[Peter Lemkin]

Excuse me for butting in...but I think, Ashton, you have the wrong 'take' on David. He's on the good-guys side....I think you both have rather sardonic humor that is clashing - more so that you don't know who he is through his posts these many months you've been gone, and he doesn't know your style as he came after you left. Peace be unto you both. <Bong> End Round one - back to your corners.

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Sep 21 2007, 08:43 PM

[Charles Drago]

Excuse me for butting in...but I think, Ashton, you have the wrong 'take' on David. He's on the good-guys side....I think you both have rather sardonic humor that is clashing - more so that you don't know who he is through his posts these many months you've been gone, and he doesn't know your style as he came after you left. Peace be unto you both. <Bong> End Round one - back to your corners.

I don't know, Peter. I'm starting to enjoy this.

[Gary Loughran]

David and Ashton have both made great contributions on many topics of their expertise and interests: and are to be admired for the sincerity of their work. I won't pretend to understand the seeming complexity of the above topics they have both discussed with vigour (I truly do valiantly research to try and get some idea); I believe there is more commonality to their more general views than is apparent in this specific instance. Both know who the bad guys are...that bastard child...and their parents...International Bankers; If I'm not mistaken (if I am humble apologies for my assumptions).

I would hope Ashton is given some room to expand his CIA/Scientology links to Watergate. It's been a long time coming and I, personally, would like to see some flesh on the skeleton of the timeline.

[Ashton Gray]

Excuse me for butting in...but I think, Ashton, you have the wrong 'take' on David. He's on the good-guys side...

I don't have any "take" on David Guyett. I don't know him. I don't try to "read" people through a forum any more than I try to read tea leaves. Personality contests are just one more irrelevancy as far as I'm concerned.

What I "read" are facts, relevancy and accuracy thereof.

On that issue, I'll say this loud and clear: every public forum I've ever seen or known of where the CIA's connection to Scientology in CIA's Remote Viewing program has been broached, without exception is invariably invaded by mouthpieces who always start singing the exact same song: "Ohhhh, Hubbard was into black magic, Parsons, Crowley, it all came from the occult, he was a plagiarist, ohhhh, Hubbard really wasn't the source of it, ohhhhhh, the CIA wasn't really using Scientology, ohhhhhh, no, Puthoff, Swann, and Price just happened to be Scientologists—but they weren't really, see, because they all quit Scientology—and, anyway, they were all paranormal adepts having nothing to do with Scientology, and CIA was using something else for RV, not, not, not Scientology, and..."

<SPIT!>

It's always, invariably, the exact same script, the exact same sensationalistic smear-campaign crap, and the intent and purpose always is to steer the focus off of CIA, where it belongs, and to turn the entire discussion into a gossip rag to smear the name of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology so everybody forgets what actually is at issue and what actually took place.

You're a smart guy, aren't you, Peter? Who do you think would be behind such a coordinated and cookie-cutter campaign of lies and disinformation every time, every place, without exception, that this subject comes up?

As long as I'm drawing breath, it ain't happening here.

Meanwhile, back to facts, let's apply a little fact-finding to the recent suggestion by Mr. Guyett that he wants to "entertain": that Puthoff, Swann, and Price were chosen by the CIA not because they were Scientology OTs—oh, perish the thought—but because they had some (so far undisclosed) other, older "occult studies these gentlemen had been coached in." (This exact same nonsense is always trotted out, without ever any scrap of support for it, everywhere CIA use of Scientologists is exposed.)

So let's do the math, shall we?

The population of the United States in 1972, when CIA awarded the Remote Viewing contract to Puthoff, was approximately 210 million, but I'm going rounding it to 200 million for these purposes. You can slice and dice decimal points further if you want—not that it will matter.
 
My best estimates from records I can find is that there were maybe about 200 American Scientology OT VIIs in the U.S. by then.
 
For just one American Scientology OT VII to be selected by CIA for the RV program (having, of course, nothing to do with the fact that he was a Scientology OT VII), the odds are 0.000001 or about one in a million. Would you like to take those odds on a bet in Vegas? How much would you put down on such a bet?
 
But we aren't even close yet: for TWO American Scientology OT VIIs to be selected for the CIA's RV program—Puthoff and Swann—it gets a whole lot worse. Then the chance becomes essentially 0.000001 * 0.000001, which is 0.000000000001. Now it's up to 1 chance in a trillion.

Are we there yet? Hell no.
 
Then they added Pat Price. He was OT III. Puthoff and Swann were also OT IIIs (in order to get to OT VII). A generous estimate is that there were approximately 400 Scientology OT IIIs in late 1972. Since all three of them—Price, Puthoff, and Swann—were OT IIIs, the odds just of randomly pulling three OT IIIs out of the hat (never mind the OT VII numbers) are  0.000002 *  0.000002 *  0.000002, which comes to a mind-numbing 0.000000000000000008 chance.

It makes DNA testing look like a crap shoot with one die.

And then somebody wants to engage me in a discussion about Puthoff, Swann, and Price having been picked by CIA for the Remote Viewing program because of their astral walking or dowsing prowess (of which there is no record whatsoever).

How long do you expect me to sit still for such garbage?

Ashton

This post has been edited by Ashton Gray: Sep 22 2007, 06:55 AM

[Peter Lemkin]

I don't have any "take" on David Guyett. I don't know him. I don't try to "read" people through a forum any more than I try to read tea leaves. Personality contests are just one more irrelevancy as far as I'm concerned.

What I "read" are facts, relevancy and accuracy thereof.

On that issue, I'll say this loud and clear: every public forum I've ever seen or known of where the CIA's connection to Scientology in CIA's Remote Viewing program has been broached, without exception is invariably invaded by mouthpieces who always start singing the exact same song: "Ohhhh, Hubbard was into black magic, Parsons, Crowley, it all came from the occult, he was a plagiarist, ohhhh, Hubbard really wasn't the source of it, ohhhhhh, the CIA wasn't really using Scientology, ohhhhhh, no, Puthoff, Swann, and Price just happened to be Scientologists—but they weren't really, see, because they all quit Scientology—and, anyway, they were all paranormal adepts having nothing to do with Scientology, and CIA was using something else for RV, not, not, not Scientology, and..."

<SPIT!> [Ashton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was hoping not to be drawn into this thread, as it is not much my expertise nor cup 'o tea. I don't need any convincing that the CIA and Hubbard / Scientology had some invisible hidden connections - I thought that decades ago.

I'm not much into the occult [and dubious of most of it....yet don't doubt that others believe in it, nor that whole historic movements have been based upon its belief(s)].

David is apparently much more of a believer and I couldn't, speak for his specific beliefs on 
that - though he is mostly an expert in the financial/political shenanagans that the covert world, financial world, and political elites are involved in. He has made great contributions to the Forum along those lines, and others.

David likely doesn't know your areas of interest are the criminal nature of the CIA [and all the interrelated slime] and Watergate, in particular, nor the great contributions you have made here along those lines, as well as many others.

It is just my guess that you two would find general agreement on most other things and by some unfortunate fate have hit on your first interaction on one that you obviously do not......a quick look at eah other's past posts on other topics will, I think, show this mostly true.
I'll leave it at that and let you two have your friendly chat. No pulling hair.

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Sep 22 2007, 09:22 AM

[Guest_David Guyatt_*]

...Hubbard was a magical initiate of Jack Parsons who, besides being regarded as one of the grand-daddy’s of American rocketry, was a high-level occultist and leader of the Agape Lodge of the Ordo Templis Orientis headquartered in Pasadena...

There is considerable evidence to support an entirely different view: that Hubbard in fact was on mission for Naval Intelligence in August 1945 when he went to the home of Jack Parsons for the first time, and that his further involvement with Parsons was a clandestine Naval Intelligence operation to undermine Parsons' Peculiar Preternatural Pasadena Party because of the sensitivity of information that Parsons was and had been privy to.

In support of that, I can document for you that Hubbard had been in Naval Intelligence during the War, and I further can document that Hubbard was not officially and finally mustered out of the Navy until 1950, and I further can document that Naval Intelligence attempted to order Hubbard back to active duty in 1950 in order to seize control of Dianetics.

And what was the outcome of the brief Hubbard association with Parsons? Within less than a year, Parsons was ruined, had pursued his girlfriend, Sara Northrup, and Hubbard all the way across the country, had lost thousands of dollars, had lost his girl friend, and had lost a schooner in the bargain. Sounds like a damned successful U.S. intelligence operation to me.

Of course, the "official story" is that Hubbard was a bad, bad boy, up to his eyeballs in "black magic," and that's all Scientology really is, and yadda-yadda-yadda. And I see you're here flogging it hard.

Why?

Ashton

Thank you Ashton.

Yes, it sounds as though Hubbard may have been part of one of the Navy's MKULTRA related projects, BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, CHATTER etc. And to a certain extent this is where my interest lies and why I theorise that Hubbard was deeply involved in the occult, for I contend that such interests/skill sets converge on a common theme. Moreover, beng in the Armed Forces and being involved in the occult are not mutuallly exclusive activities, as is attested by the case of Colonel Michael Aquino. I would also mention here Andrija Puharich who was quite closely associated with Hubbard, was in the US Army and was also involved in dianetics and with occult circles.

From this angle, it is sensible - at least to me - to look at the history of the occult and try to discover exactly where it was that Hubbard found his "Source". I believe it most likely was the esoteric and your mention of his essay Excalibur only reinforced that belief.

One of many reasons why I adhere to this line of reasoning is that, today, the realms of the esoteric are riddled with mysterious individuals who are believed to have associations with the intelligence community. In this regard one might read Picknett's & Prince's interesting book The Stargate Conspiracy. I can also speak of these networks and connections personally, as I have spent many years investigating them. This includes extensive involvement with intelligence related individuals holding such interests.

One might also look at the background of the origin of the Priory of Sion myth that, likewise, had numerous intelligence connections in its origination, that also continue today. Ditto the subject of UFO's and figures like Colonel Corso. All these subjects, while diverse in the extreme, and also very uninviting to the serious scholar of intelligence community activities, non-the-less have extraordinary levels of intelligence community involvement. I also have tracked numerous chivalric orders and have likewise found a rather strong occult thread running through many of them (if not all of them), as there are likewise, intelligence connections.

The concen is not so much with the pros or cons of esoterocism itself, but the ages long techniques that have been honed and polished by such groups to access the deeper reaches of the human mind (if you will). Furthermore, moving from manipulating an individuals mind -- which we know has happened -- to penetrating the collective mind (Jung's "Collective Unconscious" - Occult's "Group Mind") is so serious as to be positively alarming. In this scenario adverse social engineering can take place at a remove from human consciousness. And if you fully ponder the ramifications of that ability, I think any sensible person will be appalled by the possibilities.

David

[Guest_David Guyatt_*]

...Hubbard was a magical initiate of Jack Parsons who, besides being regarded as one of the grand-daddy’s of American rocketry, was a high-level occultist and leader of the Agape Lodge of the Ordo Templis Orientis headquartered in Pasadena...

There is considerable evidence to support an entirely different view: that Hubbard in fact was on mission for Naval Intelligence in August 1945 when he went to the home of Jack Parsons for the first time, and that his further involvement with Parsons was a clandestine Naval Intelligence operation to undermine Parsons' Peculiar Preternatural Pasadena Party because of the sensitivity of information that Parsons was and had been privy to.

In support of that, I can document for you that Hubbard had been in Naval Intelligence during the War, and I further can document that Hubbard was not officially and finally mustered out of the Navy until 1950, and I further can document that Naval Intelligence attempted to order Hubbard back to active duty in 1950 in order to seize control of Dianetics.

And what was the outcome of the brief Hubbard association with Parsons? Within less than a year, Parsons was ruined, had pursued his girlfriend, Sara Northrup, and Hubbard all the way across the country, had lost thousands of dollars, had lost his girl friend, and had lost a schooner in the bargain. Sounds like a damned successful U.S. intelligence operation to me.

Of course, the "official story" is that Hubbard was a bad, bad boy, up to his eyeballs in "black magic," and that's all Scientology really is, and yadda-yadda-yadda. And I see you're here flogging it hard.

Why?

Ashton

Thank you Ashton.

Yes, it sounds as though Hubbard may have been part of one of the Navy's MKULTRA related projects, BLUEBIRD, ARTICHOKE, CHATTER etc. And to a certain extent this is where my interest lies and why I theorise that Hubbard was deeply involved in the occult, for I contend that such interests/skill sets converge on a common theme. Moreover, beng in the Armed Forces and being involved in the occult are not mutuallly exclusive activities, as is attested by the case of Colonel Michael Aquino. I would also mention here Andrija Puharich who was quite closely associated with Hubbard, was in the US Army and was also involved in dianetics and with occult circles.

From this angle, it is sensible - at least to me - to look at the history of the occult and try to discover exactly where it was that Hubbard found his "Source". I believe it most likely was the esoteric and your mention of his essay Excalibur only reinforced that belief.

One of many reasons why I adhere to this line of reasoning is that, today, the realms of the esoteric are riddled with mysterious individuals who are believed to have associations with the intelligence community. In this regard one might read Picknett's & Prince's interesting book The Stargate Conspiracy. I can also speak of these networks and connections personally, as I have spent many years investigating them. This includes extensive involvement with intelligence related individuals holding such interests.

One might also look at the background of the origin of the Priory of Sion myth that, likewise, had numerous intelligence connections in its origination, that also continue today. Ditto the subject of UFO's and figures like Colonel Corso. All these subjects, while diverse in the extreme, and also very uninviting to the serious scholar of intelligence community activities, non-the-less have extraordinary levels of intelligence community involvement. I also have tracked numerous chivalric orders and have likewise found a rather strong occult thread running through many of them (if not all of them), as there are likewise, intelligence connections.

The concen is not so much with the pros or cons of esoterocism itself, but the ages long techniques that have been honed and polished by such groups to access the deeper reaches of the human mind (if you will). Furthermore, moving from manipulating an individuals mind -- which we know has happened -- to penetrating the collective mind (Jung's "Collective Unconscious" - Occult's "Group Mind") is so serious as to be positively alarming. In this scenario adverse social engineering can take place at a remove from human consciousness. And if you fully ponder the ramifications of that ability, I think any sensible person will be appalled by the possibilities.

David