On 28th May, 1972, McCord and his team broke into the DNC's offices and placed bugs on the telephones of Larry O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee and R. Spencer Oliver, executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen.

Some historians have been puzzled by the decision to place bugs on Oliver's telephone. Jim Hougan (Secret Agenda) has pointed out that Oliver's father was a lawyer who worked with Robert F. Bennett, the head of the Robert Mullen & Co. Oliver also represented Howard Hughes.

In an interview with Robert Parry, the author of Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004) Oliver suggested that the wiretap was connected to his attempts to head off the nomination of George McGovern. Oliver was concerned that McGovern would be easily defeated by Richard Nixon in the 1972 presidential election. He was therefore involved in a plot to replace McGovern with Terry Sanford.

Oliver believes that Nixon wanted to gain information about his plans so that he could undermine the plot to stop McGovern's candidacy. According to Oliver, John Connally and Robert Strauss, were using their influence behind the scenes to get McGovern the nomination. He points out that McGovern got his share of the Texas delegates on 14th June, 1972. Later that day, Gordon Liddy told the burglars that they needed to return to the Democratic offices at Watergate. Three days later, James W. McCord, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez and Bernard L. Barker were arrested while breaking into the Watergate offices. Does this mean that the purpose of the second break-in was to remove the bug from Oliver's phone?

Spencer Oliver was convinced that the full story was not being revealed about Watergate. He therefore started a lawsuit against those involved in placing a wiretap on his phone. As he pointed out: "I realized that anybody who received the contents of the intercepted telephone conversation and passed them on, in other words, the fruits of the criminal act, was also guilty of a felony. So that meant that if someone listened to my phone, wrote a memo like McCord had done and sent it to the White House or to CREEP, everybody who got those memos and either read them or passed them on was a felon."

Robert Strauss, who was now Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, tried to persuade Oliver to drop the lawsuit. When he refused, Strauss cut off his pay as executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen. Strauss also worked behind the scenes in order to arrange a negotiated settlement with the Republican Party.

At a press conference in April, 1973, Oliver declared: "I am appalled at the idea of ending the civil suit in the Watergate case through a secretly negotiated settlement and thereby destroying what may be an important forum through which the truth about those responsible may become known. I do not know what motivated Robert Strauss to even contemplate such a step."

Robert Parry (Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq) has pointed out that "Oliver said it was not until spring 1973 that he began putting the pieces of the Watergate mystery together, leading him to believe that the events around the Texas convention were not simply coincidental but rather the consequence of Republican eavesdropping on his telephone. If that was true, Oliver suspected, Strauss may have been collaborating with his old mentor Connally both in arranging a Texas outcome that would ensure McGovern's nomination and later in trying to head off the Watergate civil lawsuit."

In 1976 Spencer Oliver was appointed as Chief Counsel of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives and during the Iran-Contra Scandal he instigated an investigation of CIA director, William Casey. He also served as Chief of Staff of the US Helsinki Commission (1976-1985).

Oliver also took an interest in the October Surprise affair. When he praised the arms dealer, Dirk Stoffberg, for testifying about the case, he was bitterly attacked by the Republicans for attempting to smear Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Oliver was defended by his boss, Dante Fascell of Florida, who argued that Oliver's actions were carried out "under my direction". As a result of this debate, the House of Representatives voted 217 - 192 to create a special Task Force to examine the October Surprise issue.

In 1992 Oliver called for an investigation into the secret foreign policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. This included the support of the Reagan administration for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Later that year Oliver was appointed as Secretary General of the International Secretariat of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. The Standing Committee of Heads of Delegations decided in 1995 to provide for a five year term for the Secretary General. Oliver was unanimously re-elected and was subsequently re-elected twice for five year terms.

I have Spencer Oliver's email address and will invite him to join the Forum.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoliverRS.htm

I beg to differ:

There were no bugs in the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972. Period.

Ashton Gray

I met Spencer Oliver’s father, Bob Oliver, several times when I was employed by General Foods Corporation in the years immediately preceding Watergate. His father was retained by The Mullen Company, a CIA-organized front, which was the public relations/lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. used by General Foods. Robert Mullen and Oliver’s father on occasion traveled to White Plains, N.Y. to advise the corporate leaders of General Foods.

When Robert Bennett purchased The Mullen Company in 1970, he continued the retainer relationship with Oliver’s father.

As to the assertion by a member of the Forum that there were no break-ins at the Democratic Party headquarters in Watergate prior to June 17, 1972, or “bugs” planted there, the reader’s attention in called to the posting of the sworn deposition of Gordon Liddy in this thread. Liddy provides specific details of the prior break-ins, exposing the gross absurdity of the member’s la-la-land assertion.

I have read your postings but I do not think you have done enough to convince me that the bugs were never placed on the phones of O’Brien and Oliver. However, I suspect that the real motive was not to place bugs. They were sent in to remove them but the real motive was by the CIA to set-up Nixon.

It is still not clear why you think McCord and his team were doing in the Watergate offices. Nor why they were willing to take the rap for something they were not guilty of doing.

First, there is no evidence or testimony that any bug at all ever was on an O'Brien phone.

Second, days before the 17 June "break-in" there was a phone company sweep: no bugs.

Third, immediately after the arrests there were sweeps. Guess what: no bugs.

I don't need to "convince" anybody that there were no bugs. The only evidence of records says: "NO BUGS."

The only "evidence" you (and 99.999999999999999% of the world) have for believing in bugs having been planted is because Daddy told you so.

(I'm sorry, I misspoke—it wasn't daddy; it was Lie-Factory Liddy and a handful of his fellow convicted and thoroughly impeached criminals. Daddy told you about the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. Same difference. Only Daddy had benign motives.)

Do you have anything else besides the "word" of proven liars to base this bug religion on? If so, bring it. If not, what is there to cliing to? What is there to stand on?




Oh, for the love of God! Of course the 17 June break-in was the springing of the trap, but the CIA had had Nixon set up since 26 August 1971 when they sent Hunt and Liddy out to Beverly Hills to take snapshots of each other in front of the office door of CIA's pet psychiatrist Louis Fielding.

And of course all they had to do was "get caught" on 17 June, and claim they had been in before bugging the place. Think the thing through: Why in the world would CIA risk their assets for this op by actually breaking in two weeks earlier? There's not a chance in hell! All they had to do was tell the same story, which is exactly what they did, and so amateurishly and badly and conflictingly that it would make 10-year-olds laugh out loud.



Asked and answered. They were there to get caught, then to plant the 28 May "break-in" story, which was their alibi for what they actually had been doing on Memorial Day week-end. If you want to know what that was, you'll have to ask them or somebody at Langley.



Because it was an arranged "rap" with pay-offs at the other end; because it was necessary to selling the op; because it created a world-wide distraction that is reverberating to this day and that took all attention off CIA; and because the consequences of the truth being revealed were so dire that it is to this minute among the dirtiest secrets of the dirtiest scum that ever cashed a government payroll check.

Believing in the Easter Bunny is a lot easier and more pleasant, though, innit?

Ashton

Ashton, the Church Committee investigation into CIA activities came as a direct result of Watergate. Baker and Thompson (and Colson and Nixon) had convinced many that the CIA was somehow involved in Watergate. And then someone (Nixon himself?) got word to Hersh about Operation Chaos and Angleton's activities. At that point the CIA became fair game and was put in the sights of Senators Church, Schweiker and Hart. Are you at least willing to admit they miscalculated? Your assertion that just about everything we've been told is part of some CIA plot doesn't ring true with me in part because I just don't think the boys at Langley were as omniscient as you seem to believe.

In fact the opposite is true. The arrest of the burglars drew attention to the CIA. James W. McCord admitted at the earliest possible stage when he appeared before the judge that he was CIA. The other burglars had done work for the CIA before (Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez, Eugenio Martinez, Bernard L. Barker) and the phone number of E. Howard Hunt was found in two of the address books of the burglars. It was this that took the matter into the White House and at the same time implicated the CIA in Nixon's dirty tricks.

If the intention was to get caught bugging the Watergate offices why did they not take bugs with them?

Temporary, intentional, and fully under control of CIA at all relevant times. That was the whole bait-and-switch, which my multi-part series (now unfortunately approaching book length and slated to be finished by the end of September) is covering in detail.



Sure he did—after Caddy had confirmed to him that all the evidence had been planted in Hunt's White House safe by Hunt, and at his (McCord's) own house by Baldwin, and that the bait-and-switch was set to spriing. Look at the sequence. (Naturally enough, Caddy has jumped on this thread to wave the same old pack of Liddy lies in everybody's face as some kind of "proof" that all was just as The Official Story claims. <Snort!> That's all he's ever going to do. But it's obvious to anybody with an IQ above room temperature that Caddy had not the slightest reason to be involved at all, and that he served no other function than as a walk-on and walk-off CIA water-carrier.)



Planted in the rooms intentionally, of course. Nobody is that stupid.

And of course CIA used their own people for the black bag part: they had to. And that's why they had to set up a bait-and-switch to pin it all elsewhere.

All the bread crumb trails to CIA were the bait. You can't pull a bait-and-switch without the bait. But every trail that led toward CIA also led toward the White House.

Do you play chess? The whole bait-and-switch op was just a variation of "the skewer," with CIA playing both sides of the board. They first put themselves as the front piece of their own skewer, then simply stepped aside at the designated time, leaving "the King" in checkmate. It's as old as dirt.

Liddy and Hunt were double agents. That's why they had been wormed into the White House in the first place! And the CIA "Pentagon Papers" op is what was used to put them there.

And, Lord, don't leave out the fact Hunt and Liddy had flown to Miami on or about 14 April 1972 and given the Dahlberg and Ogarrio-funneled checks to Barker so he could arrange to get traceable sequential bills to plant on all of them, which first would arouse suspicion about "CIA involvement" and then would point 30 giant kleig lights onto the White House. That was the bait-and-switch, and they put their whipping boy, Patrick Gray, into Hoover's seat at the FBI—two weeks after the Hunt-Liddy check run to Miami—to run it for them with their other marionette, John Dean, both of whom would then spring the major traps in succession while erasing all the Hunt tracks that CIA wanted erased.

You know, this whole operation is really just ho-hum. It's pedestrian. It's a no-brainer once it's timelined.



No, it was the trail of sequentially-numbered $100 bills that the CIA had planted to lead right up to the desk in the Oval Office—after first holding out a phony "lead" toward CIA. Bait-and-switch. Bait-and-switch. Bait-and-switch.

And what "dirty tricks"? The only ones that were going on of any significance all involved the same CIA people! Christ, there's nobody you can name associated with any "dirty tricks" that wasn't directly involved with Hunt! Do you doubt it? If so, name them!

Thomas Gregory was a snot-nosed kid from Utah who was completely put into place by Hunt, and was on Hunt's payroll. Gregory was brought in by fellow Mormon (and CIA snake) Robert Bennett, and was under Bennett's and Hunt's thumbs at every step, quaking all the way, right up to the moment they were done with him, and then they tossed him aside by scaring him into running.

Hunt and Liddy are on record as having been in clandestine meetings at least twice with Segretti (a.k.a. "Don Simmons") during the whole period.

There's not a single aspect of the entire toxic mess that isn't absolutely dripping with putrescent CIA taint. Rubber gloves are in order.



John, few people can actually make me sputter, but you just did. From all the way across the pond. That's quite a feat.

They did! McCord had the football-sized "smoke alarm" device (to make sure nobody would miss it), while Hunt and Baldwin were planting the other "electronic devices" at the White House and at McCord's house to be "discovered" at appropriate times.

I'm going to make this real plain and simple:

The only electronic equipment ever in evidence anywhere in the length, width, and breadth of "Watergate" is the "evidence" that was that planted at three locations on the night of 16-17 June 1972 by James McCord, E. Howard Hunt, and Alfred C. Baldwin III for the sole purpose of being "found."

That's it. That's all. Finis. End of evidentiary trail. End of discussion. Postulating any other electronic or "bugging" equipment ever in evidence anywhere, at any time, is postulating pure faith-based religion, a faith based exclusively on the statements of proven liars and convicted criminals.

So not only did they plant electronic "evidence," not only did they paper themselves with traceable money that practically glowed in the dark, not only did they leave address books scattered around with "W.H." (White House) clues, not only did they arrange to have plain-clothes police respond to a burglary-in-progress, but James McCord went back and taped the goddamned doors TWICE when the first time didn't trip the trap.

I don't know—what do you need? Signed confessions? Good luck.

In the meantime, every "mystery" of Watergate is completely, thoroughly, entirely, and unequivocally answered by the foregoing. The "mystery" of Watergate is dead and buried. Put a headstone on it.

What hasn't been answered fully is what the CIA crew actually was doing over Memorial Day weekend 1972. They won't ever answer that one voluntarily.

Oh, yeah: and how Alfred C. Baldwin III left McCord's house after he drove the van full of electronic equipment there in the early morning hours of 17 June 1972. That question I asked him is still sitting in his thread. Maybe you can get him to answer it. Good luck on that, too.

Ashton

Up until today I'd not heard of a bait and switch operation where the bait was something no one wanted to bite into. When the CIA connection to the burglars was exposed the FBI wanted to back off, and NIXON used this to try to get them to back off. More importantlly, however, the CIA initially went along with this. Why would they do this if their goal was to have these men investigated? Why not just provide this info to Pat Gray, who, according to Ashton Gray, was not gray at all, but a deep black operative of the CIA? Why not have Dean confess before the trail led to him, if he was indeed a CIA puppet? Ashton, you say your conclusions are a no-brainer and I agree, in that you'd have to be lacking a brain to go along with them. (Apologies to Henny Youngman.)

Ashton, I think you really need to modify your theory if you expect any reasonable person to believe it. Anyone the least bit informed knows of Nixon and Colson and their dirty tricks. I think the real question is why you find it necessary to clear Nixon. Perhaps you think the CIA lacked the motive to frame Nixon if he was in fact dirty, so in order to prop up your Nixon-was-framed scenario you bend over backwards to make Nixon look clean. You insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum in the process. Please explain to us again how Segretti was a Hunt operation, when Segretti was in play long before he met Hunt... And why was it again that the CIA waited until after the 72 election to spring the trap and bring about Nixon's downfall? Oh yeah, you already explained this--so they could put their agent Gerry Ford in the White House. Since the only evidence connecting Ford to an intelligence agency connects him to the FBI, please explain to us how Ford's presidency benefitted either the CIA or the FBI. History shows us that the most intense investigations of U.S. intelligence actvities began during Ford's reign, and were, in part, spurred on by Ford's behavior. How was this part of a plot, and what did this plot accomplish?

What upsets me the most about your theory is its lack of humanity. A dark force called the CIA manipulated everyone to perform some dark deeds in order to destroy a white knight named Richard Nixon. In your view, no one acted out of conscience. No one acted out of patriotism. But even less believably, no one acted out of self-interest. Dozens of men fell willingly on the sword given them by the CIA in order to discredit the squeaky-clean Nixon? I find the story makes more sense when the characters in it behave like humans and not drones. Perhaps you've been reading too much science-fiction?

Ashton Gray’s weirdo theories about Watergate are right up there with those crazies that assert six million Jews did not perish in the Holocaust, American astronauts did not walk on the Moon, and Elvis is still alive and walking around.

Exactly. If the evidence is there it is all a question of interpretation. This in itself needs reference to motivation. As Pat Speer has pointed out, your proposed motivation of the people involved makes no sense at all.




I am not sure that sarcasm helps your argument. One thing we do know is that this is a complicated case. To suggest that all the available evidence proves your analysis of the Watergate break-in is ridiculous.

[quote name='Pat Speer' date='Aug 29 2006, 10:40 PM' post='73418']
Up until today I'd not heard of a bait and switch operation where the bait was something no one wanted to bite into. When the CIA connection to the burglars was exposed the FBI wanted to back off, and NIXON used this to try to get them to back off. More importantlly, however, the CIA initially went along with this. Why would they do this if their goal was to have these men investigated? Why not just provide this info to Pat Gray, who, according to Ashton Gray, was not gray at all, but a deep black operative of the CIA? Why not have Dean confess before the trail led to him, if he was indeed a CIA puppet? Ashton, you say your conclusions are a no-brainer and I agree, in that you'd have to be lacking a brain to go along with them. (Apologies to Henny Youngman.)

Ashton, I think you really need to modify your theory if you expect any reasonable person to believe it. Anyone the least bit informed knows of Nixon and Colson and their dirty tricks. I think the real question is why you find it necessary to clear Nixon. Perhaps you think the CIA lacked the motive to frame Nixon if he was in fact dirty, so in order to prop up your Nixon-was-framed scenario you bend over backwards to make Nixon look clean. You insult the intelligence of everyone on this forum in the process. Please explain to us again how Segretti was a Hunt operation, when Segretti was in play long before he met Hunt... And why was it again that the CIA waited until after the 72 election to spring the trap and bring about Nixon's downfall? Oh yeah, you already explained this--so they could put their agent Gerry Ford in the White House. Since the only evidence connecting Ford to an intelligence agency connects him to the FBI, please explain to us how Ford's presidency benefitted either the CIA or the FBI. History shows us that the most intense investigations of U.S. intelligence actvities began during Ford's reign, and were, in part, spurred on by Ford's behavior. How was this part of a plot, and what did this plot accomplish?

What upsets me the most about your theory is its lack of humanity. A dark force called the CIA manipulated everyone to perform some dark deeds in order to destroy a white knight named Richard Nixon. In your view, no one acted out of conscience. No one acted out of patriotism. But even less believably, no one acted out of self-interest. Dozens of men fell willingly on the sword given them by the CIA in order to discredit the squeaky-clean Nixon? I find the story makes more sense when the characters in it behave like humans and not drones. Perhaps you've been reading too much science-fiction?
[/quote]

"White knight" Nixon??? Where? "Squeaky-clean Nixon"? Ashton has never said these words or even hinted at them. Pat you just pop in and twist what you read to make it become what you THINK you are reading.

You can be filthy dirty and still be set up. This is really getting old kids.

Dawn

Removed first of double post that occurred as a result of consistent forum time-outs when attempting to post.

Request for Admin to delete this message.

Ashton

John, I didn't mean to slight you by being so long in replying. This exchange began in unfortunate coincidence with a pending move, and that move conspired with a concatention of circumstances that of need have kept me away from gathering at the forums for these past many weeks, and will to a degree for some time still.

But I have carved out some time to pick this back up for the moment—long enough to respond as follows



Good. Thanks for the stipulation. We agree on that, and at least we've gotten that far. And we've established that two electronic sweeps book-ending the night of 16-17 June 1972—the first sweep done by the phone company and the second by police and FBI—determined that there were no electronic bugs in the DNC offices before or after the night of 16-17 June 1972—when the "burglars" were "caught."

Therefore it is patently impossible that any bugs were planted during any prior purported break-in on Memorial Day weekend 1972.

Ex dolo malo non oritur actio.



The above evidence requires no "interpretation." There's nothing to interpret. Two sweeps found no bugs. What's to "interpret"? There were no bugs installed in the DNC. It's inarguable. Ipso facto, all the "testimony" regarding such alleged bugs having been installed over Memorial Day weekend 1972 is, and only can be, a pack of lies. No other rational conclusion is possible.

"Interpretation" of facts not in evidence is "interpretation" of fantasy.



I would gladly entertain any motivation you'd care to present that fits the facts. And the facts say there were no bugs.

The fool's game, of course, is to try to alter the facts to fit some manufactured "motivation." Do you have a motivation you'd care to put forward that is consistent with facts, or are you trying to take a pack of unsubstantiated lies supplied by the perps, and through some alchemy transmute them into—or at least peddle them as—"facts" to fit a preconceived "motivation" that you are clinging to?

It's not an idle question. It's a pivotal question.

If you're doing the latter, then of course you will need lots and lots of "interpretations." Because the facts don't fit. The good news, of course, is that fantasy, by its nature, can be endlessly "interpreted." Hence the lucrative Watergate fiction industry.

Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt.

Just between us girls, it's my opinion that your own "interpretations" aren't embracing a tithe of the actual facts, and, instead, are selectively embracing only "facts" (however unsubstantiated) that fit your fixed and immutable model. Put another way, you seem to pick and choose among the pieces of the puzzle, selecting only the pieces that appeal to you, or that you hope will make up a picture you want to see.

Just personally, I don't find the idee fixé to be a terribly workable approach to effective data analysis. YMMV.



That Pat Speer can't make sense of the sensible is to be expected. But, really, John: I would have thought Speer-pointing beneath you.

Stripping your sentence above of the gratuitous Speer-pointing, it says: "your proposed motivation of the people involved makes no sense at all."

Well, all right: since you've thrown down the gauntlet, I'm going to pick it up, and thereby take this opportunity to bring you up to speed on just how woefully uninformed you are on facts that are absolutely requisite to anything resembling a rational or honest address to "motivation" on the events at issue.

I'm going to lay out below relevant incontrovertible facts that I daresay, from your statements, you are almost wholly uninformed of—although that hasn't encumbered your condescension to me on the subject of "motivation."

I'm going to spread before you pieces of the puzzle that you may not like at all, and that very well may not fit any picture you'd like to see: facts and relationships of facts that never will be forced, hammered, pounded, or molded into your model of "motivation." Nor will they ever be tucked under the rug as though they don't exist.

And when I'm done, if you actually care, then, to embark on a mutually respectful and analytical assessment and discussion of these facts, and even a synthesis of them into something resembling "motivation" that would have a basis in fact rather than fantasy, I would be more than happy to engage you—with the understanding that probity demands address, without exclusion, to all the following facts surrounding, and relevant to, the events at issue:

Sunday, 4 June 1972
It is one week to the day after the purported "first break-in" at the Watergate, and the simultaneous disappearance of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard in Morocco over Memorial Day weekend 1972. On this date Ingo Swann—a Scientology OT VII—departs New York City by plane for San Francisco, where he is met by NSA's Hal Puthoff—also a Scientology OT VII—and taken to Stanford Research Institute (SRI). Puthoff has offices at SRI with Russell Targ, who has been working secretly with CIA for some time on developing parapsychology for military intelligence purposes. [NOTE: New York City is the location of the backstopped address set up the previous year by Anthony Ulasewicz under Operation Sandwedge, just blocks from the lab of CIA's Cleve Backster, with whom Swann has been conducting experiments in telekinesis. While noting that Swann's trip to meet with Puthoff and CIA in California comes one week after the purported "first break-in" at the Watergate and the simultaneous disappearance of Hubbard, it must also be noted, in the "amazing coincidences" department, that Swann later will travel to Washington, D.C. one week after the upcoming 17 June "break-in" at the Watergate—in which the CIA-connected perps are "caught" and begin volunteering self-incriminating stories about their whereabouts over Memorial Day weekend (See 24 c. June 1972.)]

Tuesday, 6 June 1972
Ingo Swann remotely affects a superconducting magnetometer encased in solid concrete five feet beneath the foundation of the Varian Hall of Physics, Stanford University, causing significant readings on the device's trace charts. The event is witnessed by Dr. Arthur Hebard (sometimes spelled "Hebbard"), Dr. Marshal Lee, and six "doctoral candidates" (allegedly students of Hebard, but including CIA representatives who are involved with Swann, Puthoff, and Targ).

Wednesday, 7 June 1972
Puthoff and Swann meet with Willis Harmon, head of a CIA front called "Educational Policy Research Center" with offices at SRI and in Washington, D.C.

Thursday, 8 June 1972
Swann meets with CIA-connected psychiatrist and neurosurgeon Shafica Karagulla at the home of William Tiller.

Friday, 9 June 1972
Ingo Swann returns to New York City. On the same day John Paul Vann—who earlier had been closely connected in Vietnam with CIA's Lucien Conein, Daniel Ellsberg, and Neil Sheehan (reporter who "leaked" the Pentagon Papers for Ellsberg)—dies in a freakish helicopter crash in Vietnam that involves no enemy engagement.

Saturday, 17 June 1972
The "break-in" takes place at the Watergate hotel, in which CIA-connected men are "caught" inside DNC headquarters (although it requires two tapings of an entrance door to effect their getting "caught"). After attorney Douglas Caddy arrives at the D.C. jail (purportedly at the behest of CIA's E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy), CIA's James McCord volunteers to Washington, D.C. policeman Gary Bittenbender: "These are all good men, ex-CIA men." Sweeps of DNC headquarters conducted by FBI and police find no bugs installed.

Sunday, 18 June 1972
Kathleen Chenow, who has worked for almost a year with Hunt and Liddy in "Room 16," with scrambled lines to CIA headquarters at Langley, suddenly leaves the United States for a "vacation" in London. On the same day—the very day after the "break-in" carried out by CIA assets—Ingo Swann arrives in Northfield, Minnesota at the "annual retreat" of the Spiritual Frontiers Foundation (SFF). [NOTE: SFF is heavily funded by W. Clement Stone, to whose foundation in Chicago E. Howard Hunt has delivered an envelope of cash, given to him by G. Gordon Liddy, about six weeks earlier.]

Monday, 19 June 1972
Martha Mitchell calls a reporter late at night from a private villa of the Hyatt Newporter Hotel at 1107 Jamboree Road in Newport Beach, California. Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray is staying at the same hotel. Martha Mitchell is telling the reporter: "I saw dirty things. I know dirty things." The telephone cord is ripped from the wall. Martha Mitchell is forcefully thrown down onto the bed and forcibly given a shot in the buttocks. [NOTE: She won't be seen or heard from again for over a week, when she surfaces, bruised, in Westchester, New York for a "press conference" just miles from a CIA-connected psychiatric hospital euphemistically referred to as the "Westchester Country Club."

Tuesday, 20 June 1972
L. Patrick Gray only now returns to Washington, D.C. from California. The same morning he arrives, it's confirmed that John Dean will be handling all aspects of the Watergate investigation for the White House. That puts John Dean at the White House and L. Patrick Gray at the FBI solely in charge of every aspect of the investigation to follow. Everything that happens regarding the investigation from this point forward is under their dual control. On or around the same day, Bernard Barker receives $17,000 for bail money from E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy Hunt, plus "ten- to twelve-thousand dollars" for "expenses." The same day L. Patrick Gray meets with FBI Special Agents conducting the investigation and they discuss amongst themselves that "there could be a CIA operation involved." The same day G. Gordon Liddy (with "special clearances" from CIA) meets at Fred LaRue's apartment with LaRue and Robert Mardian and weaves a complicated (and completely unsubstantiated) tale of Liddy and Hunt having been involved with breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, interfering with Dita Beard, and having allegedly broken into the DNC on Memorial Day weekend. [NOTE: Robert Mardian is the person who had approached Liddy in December of 1970—shortly after both E. Howard Hunt and James McCord had "retired" from CIA—and asked Liddy to take a position Mardian described as "super confidential." Within six months of the Mardian offer, Liddy was in "the Plumbers" unit inside the White House staff with Hunt, both working with NSA's David Young. Hal Puthoff also is from NSA.]

Wednesday, 21 June 1972
E. Howard Hunt has flown first to New York, stayed overnight, and flown from there to Los Angeles, California. He is staying at the L.A. home of "former" CIA operative Morton B. "Tony" Jackson. G. Gordon Liddy—who has "special clearances" from CIA—flies to L.A. and meets with Hunt and Jackson. On the same day, Judge Charles Richey has been assigned to hear a civil suit filed by the Democratic National Committee against the Committee to Re-Elect the President Watergate. [NOTE: Within a few years, Charles Richey will be the federal judge who throws out Scientology Guardian Office Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and conspiracy cases naming the FBI, the Director of the FBI, the Attorney General, the CIA, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of the Army. Ritchey will go on later to preside over the criminal trial of Mary Sue Hubbard and 10 members of Scientology's Guardian's Office who are accused of stealing federal documents, and subsequently sentenced to prison. House Majority Leader Hale Boggs is Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.]

Thursday, 22 June 1972
The FBI interviews Charles Colson and ostensibly come away with the belief that Watergate is "a CIA thing." Acting FBI Director Gray calls CIA Director Richard Helms and purportedly says, "I think we've run right into the middle of a CIA covert operation." Helms asserts emphatically, "there is no CIA involvement." But Helms also makes a very strange and ambiguous "request" to Gray: "not to interview the two CIA men" (unnamed). Gray immediately issues the order to his Special Agents in charge of the Watergate investigation, telling SA Bates: "there was some CIA involvement here," and that "we should proceed very gingerly and very discreetly and carry out the investigation at the Banco Internationale, and also continue to try to trace these checks through the correspondent banks, but to hold off interviewing Mr. Ogarrio"—the Mexican lawyer through which part of the money found on Watergate burglars had come. Ken Dahlberg, source of the rest of the money, is also obliquely and ambiguously included in this hold-off. After his discussion with Richard Helms and the issuances of his orders, L. Patrick Gray has a late-evening private meeting with John Dean.[NOTE: The contradictions and conflicts in the accounts of this "possible CIA involvement" phase, and the ambiguity of the reference to a rigorously unidentified pair, "two CIA men," has no equal in all the rest of Watergate—which is saying a lot. It is literally impossible to catalog all the contradictions here, but this note is to mark this extraordinary vortex of confusion, particularly about an alleged pair of "two CIA men," when in fact all the perps involved in the break-in could be described as "CIA men."]

Friday, 23 June 1972
Acting FBI Diretor L. Patrick Gray receives an airgram from the Legal Attaché Copenhagen with the subject "L. Ron Hubbard." It encloses other airgrams captioned "The Church of Scientology in Denmark" (one of the few locations in the world at the time where the Scientology "OT Levels" are delivered). Richard M. Nixon has a breakfast meeting with House Minority Leader Gerald Ford and House Majority Leader Hale Boggs—both of whom had been members of the Warren Commission. Ford is a prominent member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. Boggs is Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Later the same morning, H.R. Haldeman, after hearing from Dean (who had met with Gray the night before) briefs Nixon. Haldeman says specifically: "the way to handle this now is for us to have [Deputy CIA Director Vernon] Walters call Pat Gray and just say, 'Stay the hell out of this...this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it.' That's not an unusual development...and, uh, that would take care of it. ...Pat [Gray] does want to. He doesn't know how to, and he doesn't have, he doesn't have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis." Nixon seizes on this "idea" (which had been laundered through Dean and Haldeman) and orders it. Later that morning, CIA's Director Richard Helms, former Deputy CIA Director General Cushman, and current Deputy CIA Director Vernon Walters meet with Haldeman and Ehrlichman at the White House, after which Deputy CIA Director Vernon Walters sets up a closed-door meeting with L. Patrick Gray that afternoon. [NOTE: CIA disinformation campaigns uniformly make it appear that Nixon spontaneously ordered a "cover up" on the morning of 23 June 1972, when in fact he was induced into agreeing to it through back-channel machinations of Gray and Helms on 22 June, funneled through Dean to Haldeman to Nixon on the morning of 23 June. Helms himself arranged with Gray on 22 June for the FBI not to interview the anonymous-in-testimony "two CIA men"—who only much later are revealed actually to have been two internal CIA employees who had been involved with Liddy and Hunt at relevant times.]

Saturday, 24 June 1972
One week after the "break-in," Ingo Swann secretly arrives in Washington, D.C. "to discuss psi [parapsychology] phenomena with a variety of officials...in terms of universal human consciousness." [NOTE: The unidentified "officials" of course are CIA.]

Sunday, 25 June 1972
John Dean calls Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray at his apartment in the morning and says he wants to meet and talk with Gray. Gray purportedly offers to meet with Dean at Gray's office at the Department of Justice, but Dean doesn't want to be seen there. So Gray meets John Dean outside Gray's southwest Washington, D.C. apartment at Harbor Square. They walk around the area and sit down on a bench and talk privately. On the same day, the FBI "locates" Afred C. Baldwin, who agrees to cooperate, supposedly "to avoid the grand jury."

Monday, 26 June 1972
John Dean is in telephone contact with Deputy CIA Dirctor Vernon Walters, who works directly for and operates only at the behest of and on the instructions of CIA Director Richard Helms.

Tuesday, 27 June 1972
Scientology OT VII Hal Puthoff sends a summary to "K. Green," Office of Strategic Intelligence (OSI) at CIA, of the results of the Varian Hall magnetometer experiment with Scientology OT VII Ingo Swann. On the same day, Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray has two phone conversations with CIA Director Richard Helms.

Wednesday, 28 June 1972
Again CIA Director Richard Helms is in contact with L. Patrick Gray. Helms tells Gray "not to interview active CIA men Karl Wagner and John Caswell"—both of whom have been involved with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. Gray immediately orders "that the interviews of John Caswell and Karl Wagner be held in abeyance," and simultaneously orders his special agents to interview Ogarrio and Dahlberg—the sources of the money found with the Watergate perps. [NOTE: The public revelation of which "two CIA men" really were protected by Gray didn't come until many months later, while the public had been falsely led to believe that Ogarrio and Dahlberg might have had some kind of CIA connection. This was the CIA's "bait and switch" that created phony media and public interest over some possible CIA connection (the money chain), which, through this Helms-Gray con, was suddenly removed, while secretly protecting the real CIA assets and liaisons to Liddy, Hunt, McCord and the other CIA henchmen involved with Watergate. In short, a "CIA interest" was concocted using "leads" (the money chain through Ogarrio and Dahlberg) that were known by CIA to lead only to the White House, since Liddy and Hunt had done all the money laundering in their double-agent capacity as "White House staff."] In the evening, John Dean meets with L. Patrick Gray and secretly turns over two large envelopes purportedly containing papers and items from the White House safe of CIA's E. Howard Hunt that had been withheld from the rank-and-file FBI agents. [NOTE: No accurate or complete accounting of what was or was not turned over to Gray has ever existed, and in fact Hunt later participated in a suit about it, apparently for no other purpose than to further confuse the issue. Gray later tells at least three conflicting stories under oath about what he had been given, and what he purportedly did with the materials he had been given. Hunt, Dean, and Gray all tell conflicting stories about the contents of Hunt's safe, some of which has been covered thoroughly elsewhere in the thread in this forum on "the Diem cables."] Dean also asks Gray for special access to certain FBI files on the Watergate investigation, which Gray agrees to. Dean again is in telephone contact with Deputy CIA Director Vernon Walters (who acts only at the behest of CIA Director Richard Helms). On the same day, Douglas Caddy is served with a subpoena from Judge John Sirica to appear before the Watergate Grand jury, and Caddy forthwith "withdraw[s] completely from representation of any of the seven defendants," according to Caddy. [NOTE: Caddy's claim implies that he actually was "representing" one or more of them, a fact not in evidence except by unsupported claims. Caddy consistently has refused to answer questions in this forum going to the issue of whether he ever was attorney of record for any of the defendants. John Sirica—who had assigned the Watergate case to himself—is the judge who in 1967 had presided over the federal case against the Founding Church of Scientology of Washington D.C. concerning Scientology electropsychometers (E-Meters) that had been seized by the FDA and FBI in February 1963 under John F. Kennedy. The E-Meters had been in the possession of the federal government until the trial, after which Sirica ordered the meters destroyed. His order had been held in abeyance on appeal, leaving the devices still in the possessiona and control of federal agencies. On appeal the case was overturned and Sirica's ruling thrown out.]

Saturday, 1 July 1972
A highly classified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Controlled Offensive Behavior—USSR" expresses U.S. concerns that "Soviet efforts in the field of psi research, sooner or later, might enable them to do some of the following: ( a ) Know the contents of top secret US documents, the movements of our troops and ships and the location and nature of our military installations ( b ) Mould the thoughts of key US military and civilian leaders at a distance ( c ) Cause the instant death of any US official at a distance ( d ) Disable, at a distance, US military equipment of all types, including spacecraft." It says further: "The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. The term parapsychology denotes a multi-disciplinary field consisting of the sciences of bionics, biophysics, psychophysics, psychology, physiology and neuropsychology. Many scientists, U.S. and Soviet, feel that parapsychology can be harnessed to create conditions where one can alter or manipulate the minds of others. The major impetus behind the Soviet drive to harness the possible capabilities of telepathic communication, telekinetic and bionics are said to come from the Soviet military and the KGB. ...Soviet knowledge in this field is superior to that of the U.S. ...Control and manipulation of the human consciousness must be considered a primary goal."

Wednesday, 5 July 1972
Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray has private conversations with CIA Deputy Director Vernon Walters and with John Dean. Around this time, Gray turns over FBI records of the investigation to Dean. Kathleen Chenow, former secretary to NSA's David Young and part time secretary to CIA's E. Howard Hunt, returns from England to be interviewed by the FBI. Alfred Baldwin receives assurance from U.S. attorneys that he will not be indicted, and will be treated as a witness, not a defendant.

Saturday, 8 July 1972
CIA's James McCord secures Gerald Alch as his attorney (for a fee of $25,000, plus expenses). Alch gets word that the Watergate prosecutors have "independent knowledge" of monitoring equipment having been delivered to McCord's home, into the possession of Mrs. McCord, by "an unspecified person" (who of course is Alfred Baldwin) on the night the burglars were "caught." The prosecutors have threatened to indict Mrs. McCord, but won't if the equipment is turned over. Alch helps arrange that Mrs. McCord turn over the equipment to prosecutors on the condition that she not be indicted, and that the prosecutors may not reveal during the trial who they got the equipment from. [NOTE: Despite having been asked repeatedly in this forum, Alfred Baldwin has refused to answer how he left McCord's house after he purportedly drove the van full of "monitoring equipment" there.]

Wednesday, 12 July 1972
There is further conversation between L. Patrick Gray and Deputy CIA Director Vernon Walters.

Wednesday, 19 July 1972
$40,000 is delivered to Anthony Ulasewicz in New York City.

Wednesday, 26 July 1972
In New York City, Ingo Swann is engaged in an out-of-body experiment at the American Society for Psychical Research that verifies the ability to assume a point of view remote from the physical body, but with the perceptions normally attributed to the visual system and brain of the body. On the same day, John Dean calls L. Patrick Gray and requests the FBI 302 investigative forms from the Watergate investigation. On the same day, Herbert Kalmbach meets with John Ehrlichman and expresses concern that the money he is funneling to Anthony Ulasewicz in New York is a "legally proper activity." Ehrlichman purportedly assures him that it is.

Friday, 28 July 1972
L. Patrick Gray again is in contact with Deputy Director of CIA Vernon Walters. The same day, John Dean picks up about 80 FBI 302 forms from Gray.

Saturday, 29 July 1972
About $60,000 more goes to Anthony Ulasewicz in New York City.

Tuesday, 1 c. August 1972
On or around this date, a secret "mission" purportedly from the Scientology flagship Apollo is in Rabat, Morocco, involved with Moroccon Minister of Defense Muhammad Oufkir and the Moroccon secret police.[NOTE: Oufkir and his own intelligence assets are believed to have been involved with intelligence agency assets in a 28 May 1972 kidnapping and assassination of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard (covered elsewhere and outside the scope). The personnel of this purported "mission" of "Scientologists" are secretly in liaison with CIA, using DEA cover, setting Oufkir up for a later intentionally sabotaged attempt on the life of Moroccon King Hassan II. See entry for 16 August 1972 et seq.]

Monday, 7 August 1972
On or around this date, Anthony Ulasewicz flies from New York City to California and is given $75,000 more in cash. On this date, Ingo Swann flies from New York City to San Francisco where he is met by Hal Puthoff. Puthoff purportedly hands an envelope of an undisclosed amount of cash to Swann on his arrival. Swann is there to participate in secret CIA experiments in remote perception and telekinesis at SRI.

Friday, 11 August 1972
Ingo Swann flies to Los Angeles with CIA-connected psychiatrist Dr. Shafica Karagulla and an undisclosed "associate."

Saturday, 12 August 1972
Anthony Ulasewicz is in Washington, D. C. and leaves a disputed amount of cash in an envelope at Washington National Airport for Dorothy Hunt before flying back to New York.

Monday, 14 August 1972
Scientology OT VII Ingo Swann returns to SRI from Los Angeles and begins a scheduled two-week series of experiments on remote perception with CIA personnel. The results are described as "startling accurate," and CIA's Sidney Gottlieb approves more funding and another work order for the development of "a more complete research plan."

Wednesday, 16 August 1972
On his return from Paris, King Hassan II of Morocco's plane is attacked by jets from his own Moroccon Air Force. The attempted coup is being run by Moroccon Minister of Defense Muhammad Oufkir, but has been sabotaged from the inside, the jets being "armed" with training blanks, so fails spectacularly.

Thursday, 17 August 1972
Muhammad Oufkir is reported as having been the mastermind behind the coup attempt on King Hassan II, and as having "committed suicide." [NOTE: An eyewitness after the fact has described Oufkir's body as riddled with bullets from the back.]

Wednesday, 23 August 1972
Richard M. Nixon accepts the nomination for President at the Republican National Convention in Miami.

Wednesday, 30 August 1972
Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray receives a message (signature blacked out): "Did you receive the printed matter that was sent to you concerning Scientology, if so please acknowledge. Thank you."

Friday, 1 c. September 1972
On or about this date, the Scientology flagship Apollo is moved from Morocco to Lisbon, Spain, reportedly to go into dry dock. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard's whereabout have been unknown since Memorial Day weekend, the Apollo crew having been told he had gone to "live ashore" at a secret location in Morocco, where he purportedly is to stay when the ship is moved to Spain. On this date, Acting FBI Director sends a reply to the anonymous person who had sent him a message on 30 August regarding Scientology: "Your letter was received on August 30th. With respect to your inquiry, a search of our records does not reveal any prior communication from you. Sincerely yours, L. Patrick Gray III". On or about the same date, Jim Dincalci—who has been "Medical Officer" aboard the flagship Apollo, with access to L. Ron Hubbard—arrives in New York City from Morocco, purportedly "on leave."

Tuesday, 5 September 1972
Acting Director of the FBI L. Patrick Gray receives a communique from the Legal Attaché Copenhagen, "SUBJECT: L. RON HUBBARD." It says, "Enclosed are single copies of an airgram dated 6/23/72, captioned 'THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY IN DENMARK,' from AmEmbassy, Copenhagen, to U.S. Dept. of State, which is self-explanatory." On the same day, eight Arab terrorists, members of the Black September group, enter the dormitory that houses the Israeli Olympic athletes, kill two Israelis, and take nine others hostage. After hours of negotiation with German officials, the terrorists and their hostages are flown in three helicopters to nearby Furstenfeldbruck airport where, shortly before midnight, five of the terrorists, all of the hostages, and a German policeman are killed during an exchange of gunfire. Three of the terrorists disappear.

Thursday, 7 September 1972
This is the date of the first known "Snow White" dispatch, titled "RE: US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORY," purportedly from a Scientology Guardian Office (GO) official, implicating the Guardian Office in questionable or illegal acts again U.S. federal agencies—in this instance the Tax Division of the Justice Department, and the Treasury Department. [NOTE: This is the beginning of a series of events spanning several years that will result in federal charges against Mary Sue Hubbard and 7 top Scientology officials, resulting in jail sentences, the dismantling of the seniormost Scientology organization, and the restructuring of all of Scientology by Meade Emory—a former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS and an attorney connected with Lane Powell, the same firm that Douglas Caddy worked for.]

Friday, 15 September 1972
E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and the "Watergate burglars" (all CIA connected) are indicted by a federal grand jury. [NOTE: Alfred C. Baldwin is not charged. Note, too, that the grand jury avoided any and all address to allegations of "mishandled campaign funds."]

Tuesday, 19 September 1972
James McCord appears for arraignment before Judge Sirica. On the same date, Anthony "Tony" Ulasewicz flies from New York City to Washington, D. C. and leaves $53,000 for E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy Hunt, in a Washington airport locker, then leaves $29,000 on a shelf in the lobby of a Howard Johnson's motel for someone to pick up. [NOTE: A memorandum from Dorothy Hunt dated 2 October 1972 claims that on this date she received $53,000 from E. Howard Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman—not from Anthony Ulasewicz through an airport drop point.]

Monday, 25 September 1972
An article in TIME magazine covering the Watergate indictments names Alfred C. Baldwin as having been involved, but not charged, claiming that Baldwin had "monitored and transcribed many of the Democrats' conversations" via "bugs" that purportedly had been planted in DNC headquarters in the Watergate over Memorial Day weekend. [NOTE: But there were no bugs at all through which Baldwin ever could have "monitored and transcribed" anything, proven beyond any rational doubt by two electronic sweeps of the premises. Baldwin's story was a complete fabrication, for which he was granted immunity, but one which all the CIA-connected perps ultimately "corroborated." Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.]

Saturday, 30 September 1972
Richard Nixon signs an interim agreement on strategic arms limitations with the Soviet Union. On or about the same day, Acting Director of the FBI L. Patrick Gray purportedly takes the files that had been given to him by John Dean—purportedly from E. Howard Hunt's safe—out of his personal FBI office safe in Washington, D.C. to his home in Stonington, Connecticut, and puts them in a chest-of-drawers just outside his bedroom, "intending to burn them." [NOTE: This is one of at least three different stories Gray told about what became of the alleged partial "contents" of Hunt's safe. In another of his tales, he already had burned them by this time in his office.]

Sunday, 1 October 1972
The day after the strategic arms treaty with the Soviet Union—on a Sunday, no less—the CIA awards a top-secret contract to NSA's Hal Puthoff, a Scientology OT VII, to develop parapsychology for military intelligence purposes in conjunction with Scientology OT VII Ingo Swann. The contract is issued by CIA's Technical Services Division (TSD), the same CIA division that has run MKULTRA and the other CIA mind-control, brainwashing, drug, and psychiatric operations. The head of TSD is the club-footed Sidney Gottlieb—"Dr. LSD." [NOTE: This program will run for over 25 years in complete secrecy. Although over 95% of it is still classified, enough information has come to light since it was first revealed in 1995 to determine that it was a top priority program running throughout the remainder of the Cold War in total secrecy, first under CIA, later shuffled to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and subjected to other intelligence cult shell games. With typical "in your face" mockery, CIA changed TSD's name to Office of Technical Services—the acronym being OTS. Although this program has been peddled by CIA hacks as having been only concerned with "remote viewing," there is also circumstantial evidence that a primary interest of the CIA in using the Scientology OTs as the core of their program had a great deal to do with Ingo Swann's repeatable demonstrated success in remotely affecting material objects, such as the Varian Hall magnetometer and sealed thermistors.]

Monday, 2 October 1972
E. Howard Hunt's wife Dorothy sends a memo to Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman, titled "Accounting of Monies Received." According to her record, by this date she has received $88,000, and claims to have paid out $91,000—$3,000 coming from her "own funds." She adds, though: "You already have an accounting of the $53,500 received on September 19th." This makes a total of $141,500 received by her, according to her. [NOTE: Part of her accounting includes "$30,000 income replacement for Mr. Hunt and Mrs. Hunt."]

Tuesday, 3 October 1972
The strategic arms limitation treaty with the Soviet Union goes into effect.

Monday, 16 October 1972
A twin engine Cessna 310 carrying House Majority Leader Hale Boggs—Vice Chairman of the Democratic National Committee—and Congressman Nick Begich disappears during a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, Alaska. [NOTE: Boggs had served on the Warren Commission, and earlier had been involved with getting John F. Kennedy to come to New Orleans in 1962, partially because of trade activity in Louisiana attributable to International House, whose director at the time was Clay Shaw. It later will be reported that prior to his disappearance Boggs had indicated (in some way, to someone, identity unknown) that he had "startling revelations" about Watergate and the Kennedy assassination.] On or about the same date, an unidentified person delivers $20,000-$25,000 cash to the office of E. Howard Hunt's attorney William O. Bittman, ostensibly from Fred LaRue.

Tuesday, 18 October 1972
At about 8:40 a.m. the Coast Guard in Long Beach, California receives a call from an informant saying that "a classified private electronics firm of which he had some knowledge or connection" had determined a location of the downed plane carrying Hale Boggs and three others. The Coast Guard contacts the FBI, and an FBI teletype is sent to Acting Director FBI L. Patrick Gray. It says that after the "first report was received" the "information concerning the location of the downed aircraft was checked with a larger unit [sic]," and that this anonymous "larger unit now discloses the downed aircraft" at a described location. The information immediately is furnished to the Coast Guard in Los Angeles. At 9:10 a.m. someone (name redacted, but apparently the original informant) "recontacted" the FBI Los Angeles office, saying, "Tracking equipment now being used is tracking the men and not the plane," suggesting that there were survivors and that they had left the plane. Sometime the same day the FBI interviews the informant. He declines to give the name of the classified firm where he works. The information is that around 7:15 the previous evening the unknown informant had received a call from "friends" who are "involved in working with highly sophisticated experimental electronic surveillance." [NOTE: There is no indication anywhere of who or what the mysterious "larger unit" is that was contacted by the FBI pursuant to the informant's tip, but which "larger unit" then gave the FBI a detailed description of a location for the downed plane. According to available records, neither the plane, nor any of its occupants, nor any scrap were ever found, despite The largest civilian and U.S. military search in history at the time, involving Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force aircraft.]

Monday, 23 October 1972
An article in TIME magazine seeds a Daniel Ellsberg-Watergate connection, saying that "Bernard Barker, the former CIA agent who led the raiding party into the Watergate, recruited nine Cubans from Miami in May and assigned them to attack Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Pentagon Papers to the public." [NOTE: So typical to such CIA-Operation Mockingbird ops, this reference to Barker in relation to Ellsberg is not only to plant a seed of connection, but to sow many weeds of confusion around it. This story is an ambiguous reference to an operation involving Barker and "the Cuban contingent" brought to D.C. to disrupt a peace rally—not a reference to Barker having been involved in the Fielding break-in, about which nothing at all so far has been revealed.]

Wednesday, 1 c. November 1972
At or around the first of November, CIA's Technical Services Divsion (TSD) is transferred out of the Directorate for Operations into the Directorate for Science and Technology, and its name is changed to Office of Technical Services (OTS). With it is transferred the CIA's top-secret "remote viewing" program being run by Scientology OTs Puthoff and Swann. At around the same time Sidney Gottlieb retires, replace by John McMahon. It is during this period that Gottlieb, with CIA Director Richard Helms's collaboration, begins destroying CIA records, a great deal of them reportedly related to CIA's MKULTRA and its predecessor programs. [NOTE: Of course no one ever will know how much was made to disappear forever in the Helms/Gottlieb purge, or what it consisted of. By 2 February 1973, after the documents have been destroyed, Helms also will be gone from CIA, spiriting overseas into an ambassadorship in Iran.]

Tuesday, 7 November 1972
Ronald DeWolf (a.k.a. L. Ron Hubbard, Jr., a.k.a. Nibs) records a video-taped interview retracting testimony he has given as a paid informant to IRS, and retracting all allegations he previously has made against his father, the founder of Scientology. He says his allegations had been made "vengefully." [NOTE: DeWolf later will retract his retraction, claiming duress, and will sue for control of the Hubbard estate, claiming that his missing father is likely dead. His suit will be used as a very public stage for employees of the FBI and BATF to "prove" with special inks and fingerprints that the missing Hubbard is "alive and well and in control of his affairs."]

Friday, 10 c. November 1972
On or around this date, Kima Douglas [a.k.a. Kima Dunleavey] and Fred Hare, representing themselves as executive officers of a "Scientology mission," fly to the Gold Coast in Africa [now Ghana] and set up a secretive corporation called "Religious Research Foundation" with bank accounts in Luxembourg and Liechtenstein. [NOTE: The whereabouts of Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard are unknown, and have been since Memorial Day weekend 1972. Years later, though, the creation of this corporation will be attributed to him in the suit by DeWolf, and subsequently used by United States Tax Court as part of adverse federal rulings that ultimately will put Scientology under control of IRS in a complex probate engineered by former Assistant to Commissioner of IRS Meade Emory, connected to the same law firm as Douglas Caddy.] On or around the same date, E. Howard Hunt telephones Charles Colson—who once again just happens to be ready to tape a Hunt phone call. Hunt says: "[T]his is a long haul thing and the stakes are very, very high and I thought that you would want to know that this thing must not break apart for foolish reasons... . We're protecting the guys who are really responsible...but at the same time, this is a two way street and as I said before, we think that now is the time when a move should be made and surely the cheapest commodity available is money." Colson gives a copy of the tape to John Dean.

Wednesday, 15 c. November 1972
On or around this date, CIA Director Richard Helms calls L. Patrick Gray's "number two man" (Mark Felt), purportedly saying that Helms is going to call Assistant Attorney General Peterson regarding the interview of CIA Deputy Director Karl Wagner to see if it "could not be conducted...be held off." On or about this date, John Dean is at Camp David and plays the Hunt/Colson tape (see 10 c. November 1972) for Ehrlichman and Haldeman, later for John Mitchell.

Sunday, 19 November 1972
On returning from the Gold Coast, the purported "Scientology missionaires" who have set up the Religious Research Foundation (Kima Douglas and Fred Hare) are "arrested" in Madrid, Spain on spurious "charges" concerning LSD and some chocolates. During a period of several days in jail, they are in private contact with U.S. DEA agents, including an agent named Weldon K. Curry, supposedly for "interrogation." In a few days all the allegations magically go away. [NOTE: The full story of this lunatic drama is a painfully transparent "cover" for these so-called Scientologists to be in secret contact with U.S. federal agents immediately after their operation to set up a phony financial corporation that later will be used by Ronald DeWolf and federal agencies and courts—all while the CIA is running a top-secret intelligence program entirely built on Scientology, secretly using U.S. intellegence personnel who have trained in the highest levels of Scientology, but without knowledge or approval of any Scientology official or organization.]

Monday, 20 November 1972
In Paris, Henry Kissinger starts a new round of peace talks with Le Duc Tho. Around the same time Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray is hospitalized with some unspecified illness.

Tuesday, 21 November 1972
The "Second Round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks" with the Soviet Union begins in Geneva.

Friday, 1 December 1972
On or about this date another $40,000 cash is delivered to E. Howard Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman, "by messenger." On this date there is a meeting in Bittman's office attended by "the lawyers." [Apparently this refers to all lawyers involved in defending Watergate defendants: Gerald Alch for McCord; Peter Maroulis for Liddy; Rothblatt for Sturgis, Martinez, Gonzales, and Barker.] According to Alch, "The question arose as to whether the CIA was involved." One of the other lawyers suggests that all of the lawyers try to ascertain from their clients whether the CIA was involved—whether they had any knowledge that would implicate the CIA. Alch tells the other attorneys that his contemplated defense for McCord is to be based on "duress." The other attorneys feel this "will only be applicable to Mr. McCord in view of his being the Chief of Security." Immediately after the meeting, Alch and McCord then meet at the Monocle Restaurant, where Alch raises the question of McCord's background in the CIA, and asks if there is any substance to allegations of Watergate being a CIA operation. McCord does not "specifically respond to that question." Alch also brings up Victor Marchetti's book, asking if it could be a good reference relative to CIA training, including disavowing connection to CIA. McCord says it wouldn't be. According to McCord's testimony: "There followed from Mr. Alch a suggestion that I use as my defense during the trial the story that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I heard him out on the suggestion, which included questions as to whether I ostensibly could have been recalled from retirement from CIA to participate in the operation. He said that if so, my personnel records at CIA could be doctored to reflect such a recall. He stated that Schlesinger, the new Director of CIA, whose appointment had just been announced, could be subpoenaed and would go along with it." [NOTE: According to public records, Richard Helms is CIA Director through 2 February 1973, and Schlesinger doesn't take over until then. Alch dates this meeting at 1 December 1972, but also contradicts himself on the date by reference to another date in December supposedly given by McCord. Pending further confirmation or corroboration it is being put at this date as seeming most likely relative to other events.]

Sunday, 3 December 1972
The Scientology land base in Morocco is ordered by persons unknown to be immediately disestablished, purportedly because of word from Paris of an impending legal action by France. A massive operation is mounted to move material and personnel to Spain almost overnight. Hubbard is nowhere in evidence.

Monday, 4 December 1972
Scientology flagship Medical Officer Jim Dincalci and former Green Beret Paul Preston board a plane in Madrid, Spain bound for New York City. [NOTE: Later Dincalci will claim to have been fleeing Spain in the company of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard on this trip with Green Beret Preston, and that the three of them "hid out" in New York for ten months. This is the only accounting for the existence or whereabouts of Hubbard during these ten months, and there never has been any evidence to substantiate Dincalci's claims.] On the same day, Henry Kissinger's Paris Peace Talks resume.

Friday, 8 December 1972
The first of several bomb threats is received by the Scientology Guardian Office in New York City. It is reported to the FBI as likely having been the work of Paulette Cooper—a woman with a Masters Degree in psychology who had written a book critical of Scientology that had been released close to the same time as the Pentagon Papers in 1971, and who subsequently had been involved with Ronald DeWolf. On the same day, E. Howard Hunt's wife Dorothy Hunt boards United Airlines flight 533 bound for Chicago. Other passengers on the plane include a journalist working for CBS named Michelle Clark—who reportedly was working on a Watergate-related story, and whose boyfriend reportedly was "a CIA operative"—and Congressman George Collins, from Chicago. On approach near Midway Airport, the plane crashes into the home of Mrs. Veronica Kuculich at 3722 70th Place, killing her and her daughter, and 45 people on the plane, including Dorothy Hunt, Michelle Clark, and Congressman Collins. Dorothy Hunt reportedly has $10,585 in cash in her purse at the time of the crash (though some sources have quoted much higher figures).

Monday, 11 c. December 1972
On or around this date, James McCord meets with his attorney, Gerald Alch, in Boston and starts out the meeting saying he'll have no part of anything that's going to put the blame on the CIA.

Wednesday, 13 December 1972
The peace talks in Paris end amid reports that they have broken down over efforts to settle the postwar political status of South Vietnam.

Friday, 15 c. December 1972
Around this date in December, Jim Dincalci—in New York with former Green Beret Paul Preston—is making regular trips to the United Nations. [NOTE: The United Nations is where Ingo Swann had worked, and where George H.W. Bush is U.S. Ambassador.] Dincalci also is making trips around this time to an office building purportedly at 60 Wall Street (see NOTE following), and meeting with a person named Alfred Toombs. [NOTE: Alfred Toombs was the name of the person who was Army Intelligence Chief in April 1945. At the time, Allen Dulles had been head of U.S. intelligence in Switzerland, traveling to Germany around April or May 1945. As for "60 Wall Street," no record could be found of what might have been there in 1972, but 59 Wall Street is the address of Brown Brothers Harriman, whose history of connections with the Bush family and CIA is copiously recorded elsewhere.]

Monday, 18 c. December 1972
On or about this date Scientology OT VII Ingo Swann flies from New York to San Francisco to begin his top-secret work under CIA contract with fellow Scientology OT VII Hal Puthoff at Stanford Research Institute. Very shortly after arriving, Swann and Puthoff purportedly go to "a Christmas tree lot" in Mountain View, California, where they "just happen" to run into another Scientology OT named Pat Price. Supposedly, Puthoff had met Price "several years earlier" at a lecture in Los Angeles. [NOTE: Pat Price soon will become a key component of the top-secret CIA program with Puthoff and Swann. No explanation is offered for why Price, from Los Angeles, would have been "selling Christmas trees" in Mountain View, never mind just happening to be at the lot where Puthoff and Swann go to buy a tree. The story is insultingly ludicrous, but this is the only offered "explanation" for how three Scientology OTs wound up as the initial core of the CIA's black operation that ran for over 25 years. Price later will die in Las Vegas under suspicious circumstances.]

Thursday, 21 December 1972
Jame McCord writes a letter to Jack Caulfield—author of the original "Operation Sandwedge," under the auspices of which Tony Ulasewicz had set up the base in New York City. The letter says in pertinent part: "Jack: Sorry to have to write you this letter but felt you had to know. If Helms goes, and if the WG (Watergate) operation is laid at the CIA's feet, where it does not belong, every tree in the forest will fall. It will be a scorched desert. The whole matter is at the precipice right now. Just pass the message that if they want it to blow, they are on exactly the right course. I'm sorry that you will get hurt in the fallout." Caulfield replies—rather ambiguously: "I have worked with these people and I know them to be as tough-minded as you. Don't underestimate them." [NOTE: It is idiotically simple to interpret Caulfield's "these people" as referring to Nixon's "people." If you doubt it, research the number of idiots who have done exactly that.]

Wednesday, 27 c. December 1972
On or about this date, Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray purportedly burns papers from E. Howard Hunt's safe "during Christmas week with the Christmas and household paper trash that had accumulated immediately following Christmas." To this point, claims Gray, he has never opened or looked at the files. But immediately before putting them in the fire—so he claims—he opens one of the files, which contain what "appear to be" Top Secret State Department cablegrams. He reads the first cable. Allegedly, it seems to implicate top officials of the Kennedy adminstration in the assassination of President Diem of South Vietnam. [NOTE: This is one of three entirely different stories Gray told about the purported "papers from Hunt's safe." Note, too, that in none of the stories of alleged "cables" is there any mention of names of any "officials of the Kennedy administration" supposedly "implicated." See separate thread in this forum on the fantasy "Diem cables."]

Sunday, 31 December 1972
E. Howard Hunt writes to Charles Colson, requesting that Colson meet with Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman. Hunt says in part: "There is a limit to the endurance of any man trapped in a hostile situation and mine was reached on December 8th."

Wednesday, 3 January 1973
Daniel Ellsberg goes on trial, accused of theft and conspiracy in the disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. On the same day, the CIA's Anthony Goldin hand delivers to the Department of Justice Watergate prosecutors photocopies of 10 photos that E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy had taken of each other, using a CIA camera, at the office of Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding. [NOTE: The Watergate prosecutors do not reveal these photos to the Ellsberg court until months later, at what turns out to be an extremely dramatic time in the Ellsberg trial, and in conjunction with the Congressional Watergate hearings. The "reasons" proffered for so withholding crucial CIA-supplied "evidence" are too ridiculous to waste good alphabet letters on here. There also is considerable circumstantial evidence that psychiatrist Fielding had been on CIA payroll at relevant times.]

There, John: I think I'll just cut it off right there for now. That at least is a reasonably good primer for "Studies in Motivation" surrounding "Watergate." Don't you think?

Once you have a firm grasp on all this, I would be simply rapt to hear a rational dissertation from you on a "motivation" that takes all the above into consideration. You would have my undivided attention if you came forth with a fabric of "motivation" that has woven into it threads from all these intertwined skeins.

Put another way: show me a picture you've put together using all the pieces—not just the ones you like. This, after all, is a skill taught at pre-school level. And since this is the Education Forum, that would seem to be a minimum requirement for putting together a puzzle-picture of "motivation." Don't you think?

And while you're trying to arrange that picture, make sure that looming over it everywhere is the dark and loathsome spectre of the Cold War. Because that pervasive miasma, John, was the single greatest source of sociopolitical and intelligence-cult and military-dominance motivation in the world at all relevant times. It was a desperate and obsessive race for supremacy by the acknowledged world powers, and the madmen running that race didn't have the same scruples and checks and balances that good people like you and yours might have. And the then-secret DIA document cited above shows just how running-scared U.S. intelligence-cult psychos—I mean, officials—were at the time.

So if you leave that crucial factor out while you're trying to organize the above pieces into something that makes at least some semblance of sense, I fear that it's just possible that you might come back here—again—proudly waving a picture of elephants and jackasses and red, white, and blue streamers and balloons and party hats, as though all the above somehow fits into some sophomoric, penny-ante "political party" game of "dirty tricks." And I have to tell you that if you do, I will be very, very disappointed. I'll have to tell you that I just know you can do better. I'll have to tell you that you left out some very big pieces. Very big pieces indeed.

I'm sure there are plenty of red-nosed people in pubs the world over who have time to squander listening to such wide-eyed, jejune credulousness, such guileless naiveté, where all the world has blue skies and finger pies and simple, open, straightforward "motivations" of power-hungry dirty politicians—all of whom, by necessity, always know far less than the hoi-polloi.

There may even be members of this forum who have time for such mental masturbation. I don't.



My argument doesn't need help; the sarcasm helps my soul.



Mmm. Well, I'm not sure that uninformed arrogance helps your argument. The pieces have been spread out before you, and they won't go away. You can put them to constructive use, or you can studiously ignore them.

Or, if you can't think of anything else to do with them, you always can poke at them with a Speer.

Ashton Gray

But, Dawn, he does so very well when arguing with his own delusions. And, really, he just falls pretty flat on his red face when forced to stick to real facts. Don't take his only toy away from him.

My disdain for Nixon is in the record. Speer just has to make up things to talk about, that's all, because he can't address the actual facts. It's sort of like his having an imaginary friend.

Ashton

__________________________________________

Ash,

One of the best things about this eminent presentation of investigative prowess is that you accomplished it auxilium Latinum. Of course, you know that you're up against it when your contribution somehow is regarded as an imposition simply because it impinges upon the 'Agenda' of the ignorami, but that's a piece of cake for a guy like you. To quote Updike, the aforementioned "radiates, from afar, the hard blue glow of high purpose."

Our fearful leader - and so many of those in attendance who are sine substantiae - hold steadfast to a variance of Rod Steiger's character's fulmination in "In The Heat Of The Night": "I got the motive which is money and the body which is dead." Well, there was corpus dilecti in the early morning hours at Watergate and, let's see, a heaping bowl of in flagrante delicto, enough to fill the bellies of the good ol' boys down there at the Re-Education Forum bar-Be-Que. But there is no there there, to quote Dorothy Parker.

After all, Damnant quodnon intelligunt (they condemn what they do not understand). Perhaps more to the point: dulce bellum inexpertis (war is sweet to those who have never fought).

Consensus Ad Idem,
JG

QUOTE (John Gillespie @ Nov 7 2006, 08:11 PM)

QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 6 2006, 09:36 PM)

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Sep 25 2006, 06:25 AM)

"White knight" Nixon??? Where? "Squeaky-clean Nixon"? Ashton has never said these words or even hinted at them. Pat you just pop in and twist what you read to make it become what you THINK you are reading.

But, Dawn, he does so very well when arguing with his own delusions. And, really, he just falls pretty flat on his red face when forced to stick to real facts. Don't take his only toy away from him.

My disdain for Nixon is in the record. Speer just has to make up things to talk about, that's all, because he can't address the actual facts. It's sort of like his having an imaginary friend.

Ashton

__________________________________________

Ash,

One of the best things about this eminent presentation of investigative prowess is that you accomplished it auxilium Latinum. Of course, you know that you're up against it when your contribution somehow is regarded as an imposition simply because it impinges upon the 'Agenda' of the ignorami, but that's a piece of cake for a guy like you. To quote Updike, the aforementioned "radiates, from afar, the hard blue glow of high purpose."

Our fearful leader - and so many of those in attendance who are sine substantiae - hold steadfast to a variance of Rod Steiger's character's fulmination in "In The Heat Of The Night": "I got the motive which is money and the body which is dead." Well, there was corpus dilecti in the early morning hours at Watergate and, let's see, a heaping bowl of in flagrante delicto, enough to fill the bellies of the good ol' boys down there at the Re-Education Forum bar-Be-Que. But there is no there there, to quote Dorothy Parker.

After all, Damnant quodnon intelligunt (they condemn what they do not understand). Perhaps more to the point: dulce bellum inexpertis (war is sweet to those who have never fought).

Consensus Ad Idem,
JG

Well done Ashton! As always. I am awaiting John's reply. And of course Doug Caddy's....

(Off to court) .

Dawn

Hi, JG. It seems like you've been a forum MIA almost as long as I have.

I hope my post is not misinterpreted as any sort of condemnation of John or anyone associated with these forums, or questioning of their motives in providing, or in the administration of this forum, because it is not that in any part or portion. Nor do I question for a moment John's courage, not only in helping to expose inequities and injustices and, bluntly, crimes, but in his demonstrated willingness to put himself on the line in candid statement of his own views and positions.

In debate, sometimes it's necessary to give as one gets, but rancor or contempt need not be—and should not be—at work, no matter how divisive issues might be. In fact, I see no point ever in debating anyone for whom one has a lack of respect.

Terence was a fine teacher: "Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto." [I am a man; nothing human is alien to me.]

Sometimes, though, as an augmentation to such a noble truth, I think we all can be served well by recalling the humbling words of Hamlet—penned by a later playwright, and still true in any language:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Ashton

Ashton, you ARE an imaginary person, although clearly not a friend. I must admit I'm curious as heck what your real name is, and if I've run into you on any of the other forums under a different name.

Your writing is made up of so much wild speculation and nonsense, I'm skeptical you could identify a "fact" if it hit you in the face. You interpret coincidences as "proof," insult everyone who disagrees with you, and will never acknowledge a mistake. You try to pass off an innate nastiness as high style. If there was a CIA asset sent to this forum whose purpose was to discredit this forum, I suspect he would behave in much the same manner.

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2006, 08:04 AM)

QUOTE (Ashton Gray @ Nov 6 2006, 09:36 PM)

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Sep 25 2006, 06:25 AM)

"White knight" Nixon??? Where? "Squeaky-clean Nixon"? Ashton has never said these words or even hinted at them. Pat you just pop in and twist what you read to make it become what you THINK you are reading.

But, Dawn, he does so very well when arguing with his own delusions. And, really, he just falls pretty flat on his red face when forced to stick to real facts. Don't take his only toy away from him.

My disdain for Nixon is in the record. Speer just has to make up things to talk about, that's all, because he can't address the actual facts. It's sort of like his having an imaginary friend.

Ashton

Ashton, you ARE an imaginary person, although clearly not a friend. I must admit I'm curious as heck what your real name is, and if I've run into you on any of the other forums under a different name.

Your writing is made up of so much wild speculation and nonsense, I'm skeptical you could identify a "fact" if it hit you in the face. You interpret coincidences as "proof," insult everyone who disagrees with you, and will never acknowledge a mistake. You try to pass off an innate nastiness as high style. If there was a CIA asset sent to this forum whose purpose was to discredit this forum, I suspect he would behave in much the same manner.

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA???
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA.

Good grief m'boy!

Dawn

I think what some of us have trouble relating to are the Scientology aspects of the argument. I've checked out Keller's "Remote Viewing Timeline" a few times

http://www.sc-i-r-s-ology.pair.com/rvtimeline/index.html

and it's still hard to figure out the attitude towards Scientology. Apparently Scientology was of great interest to the early CIA as part of CIA's investigation and experimentation in mind control. But the overall gist in this area of the Timeline is that CIA was trying to co-opt L. Ron Hubbard's work for CIA's own uses. So Hubbard's death (disappearance?) was an occasion where CIA basically succeeded in a take-over of Scientology? Is Scientology as we know it today some bastardized, CIA-controlled travesty and betrayal of what Hubbard originally intended?

This is an interesting conspiracy theory, as it has some similarities to elements of Shi'a Islam.

Shiite Islam differs from orthodox Sunni Islam in that the former narrows the qualifications of the candidate for the imamate (the equivalent of the Sunni caliphate) and hence the leadership of the Muslim community. This narrowing not only involves the Prophet Mohammad's tribe of Quraysh but also the descendants of the Prophet's son-in-law, Ali, and [Muhammad's] daughter, Fatima. Shiites insist that the legitimate right to the Prophet's mantle is through Ali and his descendants. Although there is no record of any such designation, Shiites believe that Ali was designated by the Prophet to succeed him, and after him, his descendants in direct line.... According to Shiite tradition, Ali and his descendants were infallible leaders. This devotion to Ali is further highlighted by his martyrdom and that of his son and would-be successor, Husain....
(From "Shiite Islam," Lawrence Ziring, The Middle East Political Dictionary, ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA, p. 74.)

The idealization of original great leaders as martyrs is important in both cases, and both seem to be predicated on the idea that the original movement was betrayed and taken over by nefarious forces (the CIA; the illegitimate Caliphs). And maybe the Scientology theory also serves as an explanatory framework in which all other conspiracies find their final home --- in the CIA's mind control agenda?

Aside from the Scientology aspects, the larger problem is the overwhelming emphasis on and critique of Daniel Ellsberg and the leaking of the Pentagon Papers. (Emphases in bold.)



It's clear enough that Ashton hates the CIA (about which he evidently knows more than most). But he seems to hate even more Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, and in general TREASON against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war (the leaking of the Pentagon Papers being one instance of this TREASON).

We seem to have no other choice but to accept Ashton at face-value, as a sincere (though possibly obsessive-compulsive) researcher and chronology-builder-upper fighting for truth, justice, and the American way. But I am concerned about the implicit argument here that Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers was wrong (or evil) per se, and by the further implied argument that (anything constituting) opposition to the Vietnam War was also wrong, evil, TREASON against the Commander in Chief in time of war. If this is Ashton's real point, it would be odd to find old American "anti-war radicals" from the 60s hooking up with him. (But maybe they've seen some other light since then.)

The problem I've had since I first read Ashton's (once numerous) posts is that there's no sense of hesitation, uncertainty or self-doubt (much less any hint of a capacity for self-criticism). There are no "maybes," "possibles," "coulda-beens," etc. Everything is all laid out with the utmost certainty and conviction, combined with a profuse display of conceit and cynicism. It can't be denied that this is persuasive to many, and even somehow attractive to some, but it's equally obvious that similar, extremely self-certain individuals have often been persuasive and attractive to people (sometimes they become leaders of cults, sometimes leaders of nations). We all have different tastes, but I don't find fanaticism admirable. And from what I've seen of Ashton's "writing style," he seems to be more than just overly didactic and cocksure.

Dawn, I suspect aspects of the CIA were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If that constitutes "defending" the CIA I have to admit I don't understand the meaning of the word. If you look closely you'll see that it is Ashton who has been defending Nixon, whom I consider to be a monstrous creep. Mr. Gray has repeatedly refused to state whether he feels Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses. He has also repeatedly insisted that every piece of evidence against Nixon was somehow set-up by the CIA, in order to put Gerry Ford in power, in order to keep the lid on the secrets of remote viewing uncovered by the "Church" of Scientology... That you take him seriously and support his attacks on myself and John is truly disappointing...

"...and by the further implied argument that (anything constituting) opposition to the Vietnam War was also wrong, evil, TREASON against the Commander in Chief in time of war."

_____________________________________________________________
Dan,

I enjoyed reading that lengthy piece. Really. Most of it was pretty good but of course it is inevitable, virtually certain, that things deteriorate to foolishness - as above, as always. Don't they, Dan!? Hmm. I see there has been no progress. We still see the same prejudices blinding the same people here to some simple concepts and truths. There is that knee-jerk defensiveness among some otherwise very cogent contributors whose offerings I almost have been able to transliterate.

When the subject of Nixon merely is broached it seems anathema to a sizeable segment here. When it goes beyond the suggestion that his agenda was at variance with that of the national security party (referred to in Roger Morris' Forward to "Silent Coup") and that they sought to remove him... well, that's when the hackles quickly rise, don't they?

That Forward has been quoted before at this address; it remains the most eloquent and incisive essay on the subject. How the coup was to be accomplished was then left to the usual, diabolical, pathological and in many ways fiendishly brilliant machinations of The Agency. As Ash has explained, they always have both ends covered. Peel something away and you end up giddy, thinking that you've discovered something. You have. You've discovered exactly what they wanted you to see and how they wanted you to see it. A couple of other basics: they love to piggyback on existing operations and the creators of those operations vie for Chessmaster status among their peers by insisting on the killing of two or three birds with one stone, which they did in '72. Again.

Trust me, I share the loathing of Richard Milhous Nixon with you and the others. I was in my last year of Military service when RFK was killed and when that power obsessed beast from Whittier somehow was elected. I commiserated with Liberals - yes, my fellow Liberals - and lamented the fact that we had four or more years of Nixon of which to look forward. Later, of course, the great State of Massachusetts was the only one not to vote for the bastard and we got to revel in his inglorious resignation like most of the rest of you. Hunter Thompson, on that resignation watch, said that "The man was dishonest to a fault."

That said, the age of innocence long ago ended for me and I am glad I'm not in that horrible state of denial that you and others are afraid to escape. It's the only explanation for your behavior; and here's another reminder that you enable The Insiders to continue to make inroads on whatever precious liberty and sovereignty we have left. I wish I could say that's just your problem but it's not.

Let me step aside so that the estimable Mr. Morris can lay it out for you: "Books and movies were confected. A generation of students stood inspired by discreet fraud. Reaction and machination passed blithely as the legitimate Constitutional process."

"It was - and has been - a cruel hoax to pretend the most powerful institutions of the media did not have the wherewithal to uncover this story, not to mention the train of putative historians and writers who have rehearsed the fiction since."

Feel embarrassed yet? Or do you still stand inspired by discreet fraud? Shame might be the only solution for the collective you.

This is not any harder than breaking any stupid habit. It only seems so. Can The Agenda really be addictive? What possible payoff is there (apparently none, as most of you cannot hope to hide your misery)?Come on out of that cocoon and take a walk in the sun.

After all, veritas tu liberabit, as Ash would say.

JG

I see. By "us," do you mean you have mice, or is this a quiet plea for help on a multiple-personality syndrome thing you're wrestling with?

As for "the Scientology aspects," I tend to think that Mssrs. Helms and Gottlieb might, in their current circumstances, be rather impervious to your complaints about their having dragged Scientology into all of this.

I believe Puthoff and Swann are still consuming air, though, and of course you always can direct a complaint here:

Department of Official Complaints About Scientology Being Used in Covert Strategic Intelligence by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America

Please let us all know what they say.

For a moment I almost had the fleeting thought that you might be complaining to me for having reported the facts. But then I said to myself, "Self, you know Danny-boy isn't that stupid, to start some inane 'let's shoot the messenger' campaign."

It was a great relief.



Are you sitting down, Dan? Because it appears that we agree on something. And I think that's just how it should be in a timeline that merely is laying out, dispassionately and disinterestedly, a concatenation of relevant events in time sequence. Don't you?



"Early CIA?" The program ran at least until 1995. (Our shiny new proposed Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, had it secretly running under his stewardship as DCI. Isn't that a comforting thought?)



Are you sayin' or askin'? I don't see that stated in the timeline anywhere, so until you say otherwise, I'm labelling this "The Daniel Wayne Dunn Theory of CIA Take-Over of Scientology."



Wow! Now that's a damned good question, Dan! Now that you mention it, it seems to me that I have read somewhere that all the original Scientology texts have been reissued in "new, improved" versions, and that quite a few people have taken it upon themselves to compare these to older editions and found significant changes, additions, and omissions.

But according to that timeline, the originals are all now buried underground in titanium-doored vaults (one of which was transferred to the federal government in a land-swap deal), so—I guess that's one of the imponderables that none of us will ever be able to have an answer to.





Dan, Dan, Dan. You do this to me all the time. Just when it looks like you're going to be able to maybe ride without training wheels, you make a sharp left turn and go crashing over the cliff like Wile E. Coyote and punch a Dan-shaped hole in the desert floor below.



Oh, Jesus Christ! (No pun intended.) Why don't we all just hand out free government-issue tampons to anyone showing stigmata, and thin out the martyr herd a little bit instead of increasing its population. Whaddaya say, Dan? Please?

But, speaking of martyrs, here you trot out another one:



Snipping here "The Reader's Digest Guide to the Collected Works of Ashton Gray" so we can get to your point (assuming there is one) about the alleged "larger problem":



Is that what's "clear enough" to you from all I have written? Well, I don't want this to come as an ice-water bath to your assessment, Dan, but "hate" is anathema in my own personal philosophy of life, and is something I don't indulge in.

I do not hate Daniel Ellsberg. I do not hate E. Howard Hunt, Richard Helms, the CIA, or any person or agency on this earth. That includes you, in case you even care.

What I do feel passionately about, and write passionately about, and care passionately about is institutional deceit, fraud, and crime by the people paid with the sweat of our own brows to keep us secure from just such things and to tell us the truth.

And I will continue to care about, and write about, and speak about such injustices as long as I draw breath, no matter how much you or anyone else objects to my so speaking, or to my tone, or to my language, or to my assertiveness, or to my rhetoric, or to my sarcasm, or to any other flaw I have that can be carped about or criticized or worried at with a pointy object.

But however fiery my rhetoric, however snide the curl of my lip, however caustic my comebacks, I do not hate, and will not be induced or lured into the fatal trap of hatred, where all hopes of effectiveness and probity and justice are finally consumed.

If there is any foundation for the various "hells" described in religions of man, it almost surely must be the bottomless and inescapable pit of hatred.

Ashton Gray

"Ash" or Keller or Nick,
I avoid using the cliches of the internets, but I got to this part I've quoted above, read the first paragraph and was really Laughin Out Loud. How blind and/or hypocritical can one person be?? What a silly person you are. But don't worry, buddy. I have no interest in hounding you. Of course, if you hadn't decided to gratuitously bait me, I might not have posted the above; and if you'd sent me a PM, I would've given fair warning about what I was going to post. But no harm, no foul, right? Let's just go back to where we were as of last week, with me ignoring you and yours and you ignoring me. Anybody so blind to their own self and their own so obvious contempt and cynicism needs help more than criticism. Good luck.

PS: John's thoughtful post should be answered though, so I will attach it here and then step away from further "incitement" of the hatred I must be projecting from myself onto others.........


What's going on here, John? When I warily approached reading this, I only expected to be spit on (or farted at again). This is one of the more thoughtful posts I've read in this section. So FWIW, the following represents most of my perspective at this point.

I have no problem at all with Ashton's emphasis on chronologies; I think it's an extremely important and useful tool for trying to connect the dots in history. I'm also not entirely convinced that CIA didn't manipulate Watergate events to their own advantage. (I'm firmly convinced, for instance, that they did manipulate "the Kennedy Vendetta" to their everlasting advantage.) And for that matter, I agree with what Terry M. said in some recent post (that I can't recall where it is) about some of the positive things accomplished by Nixon. I have no problems with any of that.

A secondary concern for me is what Pat has suggested, a tendency for the argument to absolve Nixon and his royal court from responsibility for the offenses that culminated in Watergate (despite the evidence of their offenses, rampant paranoia, loyalty to the chief, tendency to glorify Nazi "will" and efficiency, etc, etc). Even more important as an adjunct to this is what I pointed to above: the question whether or not the real "animus" is directed against Daniel Ellsberg, the leaking of the Pentagon Papers, and/or people who opposed our continued involvement in the Vietnam War. I suppose it strikes you and others as preciously naive at best to regard the leaking of the Pentagon Papers as a positive contribution that helped bring an end to that involvement, when apparently the truth is that it was a CIA op where the strings were being pulled by the people really in charge. But not all of us are privy to or convinced of this truth and we are left to try to decide on the matters from what we do know. (And we both know that the contents of the Pentagon Papers were only tangentially related to the Nixon Administration, in that they inherited the war, whereas it threw a good deal of bad light on the Kennedy/Johnson administrations and "the decision-making process." But maybe that's part of the thesis? --- if so, I can't recall Ashton making such an argument; but then he's written a lot, and it would be more than extremely complicated to say that Nixon should have been glad that the PP showed JFK-LBJ et al in a bad light, but that this was also somehow something that helped bring down Nixon.... According to Ashton, as far as I can tell, this was all "part of the process" --- X sets up Y, etc; but there's nothing simple in that scenario, however simple the concepts supposedly are.)

My main concern is the same that I had when I slid into this abyss, and maybe the background would help. Earlier in the year while I was taking a break from trying to do several things at once I noticed that there had been some life in the Watergate section of this forum; since that was a subject that had always interested me, I skimmed through a thread and eventually found Pat Speer chiding Ashton for his approach to questioning Baldwin and Caddy. Pat's next post in that thread was very different, pointedly asking Ashton what his purpose in being here was (that he had a voluminous knowledge of Watergate, so he wasn't here to "find out" anything, etc). This piqued my interest so I went through and read the entire thread and saw what Pat was talking about. So my main and abiding concern is that reading Ashton's posts makes me nauseous.

We all do have different tastes, and I can sympathize with being misunderstood as a result of "writing style" (since some people, usually very literal-minded, have mistaken my jokes or irony for serious assertions). I could ignore Ashton's certitude and even his arrogance, since that's fairly typical, but it's very hard for me to read the relentless and unrestrained cynicism that oozes from Ashton without coming to the conclusion that he's fundamentally a very nasty fellow. And to be blunt, I've only encountered one other "online writer" anywhere in these forums who exhibits a similar (nearly identical) style of extreme and nauseating cynicism toward all "opponents" --- and he's definitely no "CTer." So my objections to Ashton are visceral and "personality-based," and beyond that are part of my concern that he is not as he appears.

The larger issue would require a dissertation, I suppose, but can be summed up as my not trusting ideologues and fanatics. I don't trust their judgement, but above all I don't trust their honesty. Every event, every set of circumstances are twisted around to fit into their own scenario where there is no room for vicissitudes, mistakes, misjudgements, vices, virtues, or anything else that typically characterize "what happens in (human) life." It all has to fit, and anything that doesn't gets ignored, obscured, and most generally lied about. This is very much like a religious argument, a theodicy (or even a substitute for God), in that everything that happens is "explained," rationalized and sometimes "justified" on the basis of a false (lied-about) view of the world. That would be bad enough if it were only a "propaganda issue" (influencing others), but as often as not it becomes an issue of viewing and treating other people as things in "the grand scheme of things." (A very mild example: John Simkin wrote a post that tended to dismiss the sacrifices of the British people in World War II, apparently because the majority of them did not oppose Fascism early enough to suit him; I could only attribute this to John's adherence to socialist ideology and his good luck in not having been "tainted" by any nationalistic sentiments, but dismissing people's sacrifices is not something that would occur to me.) In Ashton's scenario, Douglas Caddy and Daniel Ellsberg and John Dean are still "evil," no matter what they might have done to "make amends" or "change" since then; there is no such thing as personal transformation or "rehabilitation" in this view, only so much "psychobabble" that doesn't fit into MY theory. As Pat said some time ago, there's no humanity in these types of arguments; there's only the exposition of an all-encompassing argument in which human beings are mere puppets in a puppet show where everything is answered. That may be comforting for those inclined to think that way, but I don't think it's healthy for them or helpful for anyone else.

It also seems inevitable that anyone who doesn't share the view or, even worse, has the audacity to challenge it should be demonized and become Satanic government agents. My thanks to you for implying that I'm only naive and misguided, mistakenly serving the interests of those who would do us all further harm. I guess that is some progress. But as you know, I've stayed out of "you-all's" way for some time (and restrained my inclination to make obscure cinematic references to "Renfield" and "the Brides" hissing and spitting at me for threatening the Master), but your buddy saw fit within the past few days to bait me in an apparent misunderstanding of a (very) brief comment I made in another thread. This was the "inspiration" for my post above.

Ordinarily I would apologize for my part in the previous blood-letting and casting-of-aspersions; but it would be silly (and truly naive) for me to be "a nice guy" about it when much less conscientious people have displayed no recollection or awareness of their own faults in that matter and in so many others. It's more than just tiresome to see hypocritical people constantly accusing others of the very damned things they themselves are "guilty" of; and although I really do wish some common ground could be found, it's probably for the best that I go back to staying out of the way (unless, of course, someone feels like provoking me). But if I get a chance I will read the Morris piece, and I thank you for this very reasonable and thoughtful post.

Take care,
Dan

Ummm. P'ernt of Order, yer Honor: It seems that you attached "Dan's Tortured and Anguished Infinitely Rambling Stream of Consciousness on the Ashton Problem" instead of "John's Thoughtful Post."

If you could be so kind as to make some baronial and lordly gesture of correction—once you are able to stop Laughing Out Loud, of course—toward this lowly peon, I 'low that I will then honor your request to ignore you henceforth and forever more. I feel this is something that I, even with my carefully analyzed and cataloged frailties and faults, can, in fact, accomplish. I will try, my Liege.

And I remain, as always, your 'umble whipping boy and personal Moriarity,

Ashton Gray

P.S. And "John" who? John Simkin? John Gillespie? John Galt?

I sure am glad you fielded that, John, in your usual eloquence. Having vociferously opposed that war, I found the sweeping generality you quoted to be either too stupid or too dishonest even to acknowledge, especially after I had gone to the trouble of putting the actual Treason statutes right in his face.

Of course, you or others may have some alternate explanation for such malign hyperbole as you quoted other than stupidity or dishonesty. But when I see something that so grossly distorts my position, and attempts to smear it like dung all over me using a mealy-mouthed device like "implied argument," I sit back in my chair and wonder:

"Is this person actually this swamp-stump stupid, or is this person willfully being dishonest and deceitful?"

And I never, for some reason, can think of any third alternative. Of course I'd be happy for anyone to help me out in this effort.



In some quarters, there never will be. In many other quarters, there are bulldozer advances. And so we roll right on.



Well, you said it. But I'll sure second it.

Ashton

You must stay high a lot, "Ash," since you can't tell that "should be answered" means that I am answering John's post, rather than posting John's post, and that the "John" in question would be the John Gillespie who posted a very reasonable and thoughtful post just above. But there's no need to to take it so hard and patronizingly affect "injuries" you've received. If it hurts, I actually am sorry about that; but then that's kinda my point: it don't feel so good being on the receiving end. As I said, from now on I will go back to staying out of your way (so long as you don't bait me again). And maybe we could all learn a lesson from this. As Mike Brady might have said, "Sometimes I think we worry too much about our problems, and not enough about the kids."


I think I'll go for a walk outside now
the summer sun's callin' my name
(I hear ya now)
I just can't stay inside all day
I gotta get out get me some of those ray-ay-ays

everybody's smilin'
sunshine day
everybody's laughin'
sunshine day
everybody seems so happy today
it's a sunshine day


I think I'll go for a walk outside now
the summer sun knows me by name
(he's callin me)
I gotta get out, gotta get out, gotta get away
I gotta get away, get away, get away, get away-ay-ay
into the sunshine day....

Can't you dig the sunshine
Love and sun are the same
Can't you hear him callin' your name?


Oh, I think I'll take a walk everyday now
the summer sun has shown me the way
(to be happy now)
I just can't stay inside all day
I gotta get out get me some of those ray-ay-ays

everybody's smilin'
sunshine day
everybody's laughin'
sunshine day
everybody seems so happy today
it's a sunshine day

everybody's smilin'
sunshine day
everybody's laughin'
sunshine day
everybody seems so happy today

Not high, Dan; just mesmerized, I guess, by your garden of syntax.



Before you whine and swoon anymore about how you've been "baited," let's have everyone read your delightful attempt at a hatchet job on me all the way back on 25 June 2006: He ain't no new Messiah; but is he close enough (for rock-n-roll)? Now that's a piece of work from a piece of work.



Well, the record shows you're a real specialist at appointing and annointing yourself spokesperson for the throngs of "we" and "us" that apparently populate the inside of your skull (cheering, I hope). And while I'm not so brazen as to pretend to speak for others, and am perfectly content speaking only for myself, I can say with a great deal of certainty that I have learned a lesson from this: so into the Twit File you go with Pat Speer.

*PLONK*

Ashton

Welcome to the twit file, Daniel! This file contains the names of real and sincere people, e.g. Caddy, Baldwin, myself, and John Simkin, who've earned the wrath of a certain someone, someone so insincere he hides behind a fake image and name.


Ash.... those Diem cables... who made them up again? And why did they do this exactly?

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2006, 08:56 PM)

QUOTE (Dawn Meredith @ Nov 14 2006, 01:59 PM)

QUOTE (Pat Speer @ Nov 14 2006, 08:04 AM)

Ashton, you ARE an imaginary person, although clearly not a friend. I must admit I'm curious as heck what your real name is, and if I've run into you on any of the other forums under a different name.

Your writing is made up of so much wild speculation and nonsense, I'm skeptical you could identify a "fact" if it hit you in the face. You interpret coincidences as "proof," insult everyone who disagrees with you, and will never acknowledge a mistake. You try to pass off an innate nastiness as high style. If there was a CIA asset sent to this forum whose purpose was to discredit this forum, I suspect he would behave in much the same manner.

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA???
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA.

Good grief m'boy!

Dawn

Dawn, I suspect aspects of the CIA were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If that constitutes "defending" the CIA I have to admit I don't understand the meaning of the word. If you look closely you'll see that it is Ashton who has been defending Nixon, whom I consider to be a monstrous creep. Mr. Gray has repeatedly refused to state whether he feels Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses. He has also repeatedly insisted that every piece of evidence against Nixon was somehow set-up by the CIA, in order to put Gerry Ford in power, in order to keep the lid on the secrets of remote viewing uncovered by the "Church" of Scientology... That you take him seriously and support his attacks on myself and John is truly disappointing...

Pat I do not believe it would have been possible for "aspects" of the CIA to kill JFK. It came from the t-o-p. And not just CIA.

Ashton has not ever defended Tricky Dick. Cite ONE instance. And if you don't think Watergate was a set- up that's your right. We all have our opinions, however innane they may seem to another. I saw it for the set- up it was almost from the first. I would later be "accused" of "reading Carl Oglesby" by old pal David Skinner in 1973. I had no clue who Carl was at that point. (David soon corrected this and Carl and I have been dear friends ever since). Gerry was certainly a good soldier during his WC tenure. And he was quick to pardon Tricky and he did install Poppa Bush as head of the CIA. (I daresay that was part of the bargain for this lamebrain to become president).

I do take Ashton's work very seriously. I confess guilt here. You and Carroll tag- teamed him all summer. But he has not ever attacked John. In fact he has not "attacked" anyone. From where I sit he was the one being attacked by you and Ray Carroll.

Just my opinion tho. So shoot me

Dawn

"In debate, sometimes it's necessary to give as one gets, but rancor or contempt need not be—and should not be—at work, no matter how divisive issues might be. In fact, I see no point ever in debating anyone for whom one has a lack of respect."
________________________________________________________________________________
____

May this excerpt serve to explain my current state of in absentia.

Regards,
JG

Glad to see you took a deep breath and came back.

I notice that no one has posted a syllable of rebuttal to the timeline I posted in this thread.

Nor has anyone, in something like six months, posted a syllable of rebuttal to the exposés on the Watergate "first break-in" hoax and the "Pentagon Papers" CIA op.

I believe the "Controversial Issues in History" forum has made some of its own: truth has finally begun to supplant fiction. The momentum of the grossly-funded frauds will continue for some time, but will sink into the mire of their own lies eventually, probably without even a last pitiable little bubble. The truth will not be moved.

Ashton

You have a strange notion that a timeline is a theory that is supported by the evidence. It is not. It is just a timeline. Your strategy is to provide a timeline of what appears to be two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology. The dates and details on your timeline might be completely accurate. However, it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected.

If you posted your theory about past events then I and other members might be interested in trying to rebut them (although some might not for fear of abusive sarcasm - I assume that is the reason you use this tactic). For some reason, you seem reluctant to provide theories backed up by evidence.

Actually, I don't have any notion like that at all. I have a very unstrange notion that a timeline is a recitation of facts presented chronologically.

Correct. Agreed. In fact, I'm on record as not propounding a theory. That's because I think the facts speak for themselves.



Allow me to correct what seems to be several misapprehensions.

First, I'm not engaged in any sort of contest or battle whatsoever, so naturally don't feel any need for a "strategy." Presentation of relevant facts is not a "strategy," nor does it require "strategy." It's a rather plodding clerical activity, not a win-lose game.

Second, the timeline—which speaks for itself—doesn't present "two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology." It presents two very closely related issues: Watergate and the development of the CIA's remote viewing program, which run tandem in time, both very much connected with CIA. That CIA involved Scientology rather than Rosicrucianism in their remote viewing program is a matter of record. If it offends you that Scientology was made part of it by them, why do you take that up with me? I'm reporting the facts as I've found them to be.

Considerable effort has gone into making it accurate, not just by me. Mistakes do get made, but by and large, yes, I'd say it's pretty darned accurate.



Your syllogism, however flawed at its foundation, is at least consistent. But no one has made a claim that the events are connected only by virtue of being in the timeline. The events are connected by common CIA personnel, proximate or concommitant dates, and proximate geographical locations in many cases. So the situation is actually the inverse of your syllogism: because the incidents are connected, they are in the timeline.

I'm "theory weary." I've been pounded by "theories" about Watergate for over thirty years, none of which had the slightest ken of half of what I've put into the timeline in this thread. I don't feel any need to formulate a theory.

I've said repeatedly, and I feel that the facts I've presented in this thread and elsewhere make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate at all. Without the "first break-in," all the "reasons" given for the so-called "second" break-in are false on their face. All—and that is ALL—of the extant "theories" on Watergate rely 100% on there having been a "first break-in." And there was no "first break-in." It was a hoax of the first order.

In the topic There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, I posted this over six months ago:



For over six months that offer has sat right here in this forum, and not one person has taken me up on it. Including you.

The offer stands. For anyone on this earth. Bring 'em on.

Get Liddy here. Get Hunt. Get John Dean here. Get Colson here. Tell them all I'm calling them out. Alone. I'll take them all on alone, right here in front of God and everybody. You can e-mail them and send them this message from me.

And until somebody answers that offer, and until somebody effectively rebuts the yards of documented facts I've presented, for some reason I don't feel any compulsion to spit out "theories" for entertainment value.

I came to this forum not to joust, not to play patty-cake rhetorical games, not to engage in "strategy" or "tactics," but to steam-shovel away as much of the putrid, rotting lies spread by CIA criminals as I possibly can manage within the limits of my being, and to put as much documented truth in its place as I am able. I wanted, and hoped, to be engaged in discussion with people of a like mind and purpose, from whose knowledge in such effort I could benefit.

If my "tactics" offend you, maybe we fundamentally are working at cross purposes.

Ashton

______________________________

Ashton,

Thank you for quoting me, my friend. I want to discuss the fallout to your work in long term perspective via a follow-up dispatch but, for now, let me elaborate on my recent "state of inabsentia." I found myself collapsing into 'high horse' mode wherein I'm smarter, more experienced and have better judgement than these plebians. Not a good attitude under any circumstances even though it's true. Just kidding. I suspect that confession won't win a lot of friends but there it is. I'l watch my step as I descend from my yellowing, crumbling tower.

People join for various reasons and it is to be assumed, with the exceptions of those who thankfully expose themselves to be on a different track, that they're here for just about the same things, one of which is an honest search for truth. However - and here's the rub - there is this agenda thing that has blinded some of the folks and which manifests itself in subsequent nasty correspondence, as if a substantive opinion or even documented proof somehow is a threat. Apparently it is. That much is not exactly a revelation to you.

The pettiness routines get old, quite tedious and even out of hand. If one allows - yes, I'm gulty - it can blur some things of which one should remain in a keen sense of awareness: (1.) that time is well spent here, as this is a damn interesting and often fun place to be; (2.) that this is an immense, categorical, encyclopedic undertaking by people who do a tremendous job in serving us and (3.) the price is right.

So, I'll armor-up to accusations of being a CIA plant (I may damn well be; who knows?) or worse: a Warren Commission apologist. Yikes! Call me a Dick Cheney hunting buddy before you lay that one on me.

Regards and Best of Times in the upcoming days and nights to you, The Forum staff, Jack, Steve, lee, Myra, Wim, The Duke, Pat, Dan, Dawn and, most of all, to Doug and Alfred.

As Always,
John G