Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray

Members
  • Content count

    1,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ashton Gray

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

31,222 profile views
  1. Daniel Ellsberg lit the fuse that exploded as "Watergate" with his release of the "utterly useless" Pentagon Papers. Without Ellsberg, there would have been no "Plumbers," and there would have been no Watergate. At all relevant times, Ellsberg had "higher than Top Secret" clearances. In league with two of the major CIA Operation Mockingbird mouthpieces, the New York Times and the Washington Post, Ellsberg leaked the documents with the singular knowing intention of getting E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy moved into position in the White House and Nixon administration in order to launch the CIA hoax that the world knows as "Watergate." A key part of the scheme was for the CIA to work with Hunt and Liddy to stage a phony "break-in" in September 1971 at the office of CIA-linked psychiatrist Dr. Lewis Fielding in Beverly Hills, supposedly to get hold of Ellsberg's psychiatric files. Ostensibly, Ellsberg had previously been a "patient" of Fielding. The actual and only intent of the staged "break-in" was to give Ellsberg a guaranteed "Get Out of Jail Free" card that would be melodramatically played years later, with great fanfare. It was carefully arranged so that no trier of fact ever would even have an opportunity to try the "merits" or facts of the case of the alleged "break-in" of Fielding's office—and it's a good thing, because even a cursory inspection of the "facts" surrounding the event proves beyond the slightest shade of doubt that both Ellsberg and Fielding were entirely in on the fraud with the CIA, Hunt, Liddy, and the Cuban CIA veterans who were brought in to stage it. The full context is covered thoroughly in my book, Watergate: The Hoax, but the publishers have kindly made the chapter dealing specifically with the Fielding farce freely available as an excerpt, here: CIA Crimes: 1971—Daniel Ellsberg and The Fielding Farce I'll be happy to answer any questions. Ashton Gray
  2. Ashton Gray

    Alfred C. Baldwin

    Hi Michael. Happy to contribute anything I can when and as I can. I don't have anything to add at the moment to the Liddy/Marathon Oil thread, but if I do, I will add it in that thread so this one can stay on-topic re: Baldwin.
  3. Ashton Gray

    Alfred C. Baldwin

    I cannot answer your specific questions about specific locations where The Amazing Mr. Baldwin may or may not have met with those you name, but I think it highly likely that Baldwin met with Hunt and with Liddy in 1971 and early 1972. As carefully planned as the operation was, it would be extremely naive to believe or assume that Hunt and Liddy ever would have gone into such an operation without meeting and coordinating with Baldwin well in advance, given Baldwin's crucial, pivotal role in initially selling the fraud to the world. I will assay now to lay out the best circumstantial case I'm able to assemble from the intentionally limited information that's available. I at least touched on all of it in my book Watergate: The Hoax, but because of publishing deadlines and far more weighty matters that had to take up the space available for the book, I regrettably never gave this that follows all the attention I felt it was due. I'm going to start with the very bizarre trip that E. Howard Hunt took on 26 July 1971 to Warwick, Rhode Island, ostensibly to meet with a man named Clifton DeMotte. For the trip, Hunt had gone to the trouble of getting the CIA to supply him with an ill-fitting and ridiculous "disguise," and false identification as "Ed Warren." Here is the FBI's accounts of it: Mr. Clifton DeMotte, Davisville, Rhode Island, advised that on July 26, 1971, he met with an individual who introduced himself as Ed Warren. DeMotte stated he received telephone calls from this individual who claimed that he was contacting DeMotte on the recommendation of Mr. Robert Bennett of the Robert R. Mullen Company, Washington, D. C. DeMotte met this individual at Warwick, Rhode Island. This individual told DeMotte that he was working for a group which was doing some research of the Kennedy family and on the incident at Chappaquiddick Island. Warren had a very "anti-Kennedy" attitude and asked specific questions concerning activities at the Kennedy home. FBI, Summary of Investigative Reports in the Case James Walter McCord, Jr., and Others, Burglary of Democratic National Committee Headquarters, June 17, 1972, Interception of Communications; 23 April 1973 Like so many of the Hunt-Liddy "operations," it never produced anything, never went anywhere, and obviously was only a cover for something else. Nothing about it makes even the slightest sense—unless you look at a map and discover that Warwick, Rhode Island, is only about an hour and a half from New Haven, Connecticut, where Baldwin lived at the time. Then everything about it begins to make sense, including the timing, in late July 1971. I believe that Hunt's trip was specifically to meet somewhere, probably between Warwick and New Haven, with Baldwin, check him out, and report back to Liddy and McCord about his take on Baldwin. After that, there is evidence that Liddy took over the clandestine liaison's with Baldwin to brief and coordinate with him into late 1971, continuing into 1972. I invite your attention to this statement from an FBI report, one that has received precious little attention: James Corcoran, III, 13 1/2 Kinry Road, Poughkeepsie, New York . . . advised that he is acquainted with one G. GORDON LIDDY and on numerous occasions had flown Mr. Liddy to and from the Poughkeepsie, New York, area and the Washington, D.C., area. . . . Corcoran made available his "Pilot Flight Record and Log Book" which reflected . . . information concerning aircraft flights With GORDON LIDDY . . . On further questioning CORCORAN advised that on occasion when GORDON LIDDY was visitlng in Poughkeepsie, New York, he would use PETER MAROULIS's automobile and would on the spur of the moment leave for periods of three to six hours. When CORCORAN did inquiry of MAROULIS where LIDDY was going or what he was doing MAROULIS would not answer him and either would avoid the question or change the topic of conversation. Thereafter, LIDDY would reappear with his attache case or papers. FBI Report of 8 [or 7; typeover] August 1972 by SA Vincent A. Alvino, New York, New York, Field Office File # 139-301, Bureau File # 139-4089. There is no known reason or any explanation for why Liddy would be going to Poughkeepsie. He used to live and work there, but at the time of these private-plane flights back and forth from D.C. to Poughkeepsie, Liddy and his family already live outside of D.C., in Maryland. I should note here that Poughkeepsie is about an hour and 45 minutes away from New Haven—but of course there are many places where Liddy and Baldwin could have met between the two towns, such as Danbury, on Liddy's mysterious car trips using Maroulis's borrowed car. This would have something of a symmetry, with Hunt going to a town about an hour and a half east of New Haven as cover, and Liddy going to a town about an hour and a half west of New Haven as cover for meeting with Baldwin somewhere in between. Allow me now to weave these events into a brief timeline, along with certain events related specifically to Alfred Baldwin, all of this taken from various FBI files: 26 July 1971 E. Howard Hunt travels to Warwick, Rhode Island, using CIA-supplied disguise and false I.D. as "Ed Warren." Warwick is about half an hour from New Haven, Connecticut, where Alfred Baldwin lives. Less than two weeks later: 6 August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy is on his first mystery trip to Poughkeepsie. James Corcoran flies him back to the D.C. area that day, to an airport in Maryland. 23 August 1971 G. Gordon Liddy takes his second mystery trip to Poughkeepsie. James Corcoran flies him back to the D.C. area that day, to an airport in Maryland. Just over a month later: 1 October 1971 Alfred Baldwin quits Bruce Clinton Associates, a Connecticut real estate firm, where Baldwin has been working for several years as a sales agent. Baldwin gives no reason for quitting except that he wants to “get back into law enforcement.” He has no other work or job. 11 October 1971 Alfred Baldwin places his order for a new 1972 Plymouth Sebring 2-door hardtop, black. The price is $4,540.30, but with allowance for his 1971 station wagon trade-in of $3,865.30, the cash required on delivery is $625.00. Baldwin puts a $50 deposit down on this date. [NOTE: This is shortly after Baldwin has quit his job, with no new job.] 6 November 1971 G. Gordon Liddy takes his third mystery trip to Poughkeepsie. James Corcoran flies him back to the D.C. area that day, to an airport in Maryland—but then takes Liddy back to Poughkeepsie the same day (to Duchess County Airport). 7 December 1971 Alfred Baldwin completes the purchase of and receives his new 1972 Plymouth Sebring 2-door hardtop. [NOTE: Baldwin still has no visible means of income.] 14 December 1971 G. Gordon Liddy takes his fourth mystery trip to Poughkeepsie with pilot James Corcoran. 3 January 1972 Alfred Baldwin has the radio antenna repaired on his car at Branhaven Chrysler-Plymouth in Branford, Connecticut. He tells the Service Manager, Waldemar Pallek, that he is leaving for Washington, D.C. to work, “but said nothing further as to the identity of his employer or the nature of his work.” [NOTE: Another smoking gun: Baldwin already knows he is going to be working for McCord, who won’t actually hire him for four more months. Meanwhile, Baldwin remains unemployed, yet has just bought this new car the month before.] 8 February 1972 James Corcoran flies from Duchess County Airport to Washington National airport, delivering "some papers" to Liddy. 18 March 1972 G. Gordon Liddy takes his fifth mystery trip to Poughkeepsie with pilot James Corcoran. 7 c. April 1972 Quoted from Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda: According to [Robert L. Houston, McCord's deputy at the CRP], "Baldwin had stopped in to see McCord during the first two weeks of April, 1972 (to the best of Houston's recollection), and this was the first time he (Houston) saw Baldwin." If Houston is correct about the date, then McCord and Baldwin (like McCord and Hunt) are concealing a prior acquaintance. It may be, of course, that Houston misspoke, in which case the matter remains a mystery. See the FBI's interview with Houston, conducted June 27, 1972, by special agents John E. Denton and Joseph C. Kelly. 1 May 1972 Date on which James McCord in D.C. calls Baldwin in Connecticut, supposedly having simply pulled Baldwin's name off of a list of former FBI agents, and offers Baldwin a job, sight unseen, over the phone for the next day. [Uh-hunh. Of course he did . . .] Over to you. Ashton Gray
  4. *PLONK* Plenty more room for thread hijackers, disinformationists, anyone who believes in a magic bullet that can enter a throat directly behind a necktie knot without penetrating the knot, and anyone who believes in ghosts with invisible guns shooting invisible bullets from the front of the limousine while utterly surrounded by onlookers who never saw a single one of them. Ashton Gray
  5. I did no such thing, Cliff. *PLONK* Ashton
  6. Continuing from the last post... Here is Zapruder 255 added to the sequence, and it comes just a little less than half a second later, in real time: And less than 0.185 of a second later is Zapruder 258, in real time: At no point in this sequence—which consumed BARELY OVER TWO SECONDS—do JFK's hands come anywhere near his throat. It is of course understandable that an impressionable young-teen girl who had not had a perfect angle on viewing JFK in a few traumatic split seconds, and who then had been prejudiced by Perry's lie at the press conference about a bullet entrance wound to the throat, might have been induced into believing and stating that he had clutched at his throat. It's an honest mistake. That's also understandable for the wife of a governor who had just been shot while sitting beside her—similarly getting an imperfect glimpse in a moment of high stress, similarly being lied to by Perry, the very man who obliterated the throat wound before any forensic analysis could be done. But here, now, with the benefit of the film, the full clear visual evidence proves conclusively, beyond any reasonable or rational doubt, that John F. Kennedy never once "clutched at" or "grabbed at" his throat. There was no bullet wound in John F. Kennedy's throat. Ashton Gray
  7. It is a pitiable statement on the human condition that there are those in the world who will relentlessly, shamelessly twist, pervert, and desecrate the truth for their own selfish and self-aggrandizing purposes, without the faintest twinge of conscience or scruples. The shrill insistence that on 22 November 1963 John F. Kennedy "clutched" or "grabbed" at his throat is just such a perversion of facts that are so plain, so simple, so inarguable to any reasonably prudent person, that only the most pernicious and malignant assault on logic, perception, and soundness of mind could mount a war against them. John F. Kennedy's hands never went anywhere even close to his throat that bitter, traumatic day in Dallas. There is clear and certain visual proof of it for anyone who only will look—without bias, prejudice, or fixed ideas—and will tune out the chattering irrationality. It took no more than 0.429 of a second—less than half a second—for JFK's hands to go from this position... ...to THIS position... That's LESS than HALF a second. His clenched right hand is OUT IN FRONT OF HIS MOUTH, blocking it and part of his nose from Zapruder's view, and his left hand is further forward still, OUT IN FRONT of his right hand. Add to this obvious fact that Zapruder is ELEVATED, the camera pointing at a downward angle toward JFK—which means that JFK's hands would appear EVEN HIGHER from a viewpoint level with him. They are NOWHERE NEAR HIS THROAT. Here is how fast his position changed from Zapruder 225 to 232 in real time, meaning the time between these frames has been set according to the frames-per-second rate of the camera: That's just how fast his hands flew up IN FRONT OF HIS FACE. It is utterly daffy to state that his hands were "clutching" or "grabbing" at his throat, because that physically is impossible. Only 0.368 of a second later, his hands were at the position in Zapruder 238, so here that frame is added as in real time: It isn't to say that someone must be downright delusional to state that he is "clutching at his throat" when his clenched fists are obviously out in front of his face that way, or even that they would necessarily be on drugs, but it is to say that someone may as well state that his hands are behind his head. They aren't there, either. They are clearly clenched and in FRONT OF HIS FACE. And all of this has happened IN LESS THAN 8/10ths OF A SECOND. Now here is the sequence adding Zapruder frame 247 in real time, a little over half a second later: Are you looking at this, and SERIOUSLY trying to convince yourself that someway, somehow, he just HAS to be "clutching at" or "grabbing at" his throat, because you have been told it over and over and over and over and over? Are you going to keep listening to twisted disinformation, designed to do nothing whatsoever but confound and confuse, or will you merely LOOK at what you SEE? Can his right hand—up at least as high as the bottom of his right ear, and across his cheek—be "clutching at his throat?" Try it. See how you do. What about his LEFT hand? Where is it in relation to his RIGHT hand? This is continued in the next post... Ashton Gray
  8. The only photo I have been able to find of the nick in the tie, with the tie laid out flat, has the NARA measuring scale cropped out of it. (You can decide for yourself why anyone would crop that away.) As I promised earlier, below is an animation showing how I devised a way to determine that the tie is very close to 1 3/8 inches wide at the nick. I loaded into Photoshop the existing nick-in-tie photo, which has the NARA logo and color swatches, but no measuring scale next to them. I loaded into Photoshop the photo of JFK's shirt, which has an identical NARA tag in the photo, including the logo and color swatches, but ALSO including a 1-inch measuring scale. I meticulously resized the shirt photo so that the NARA logo and color swatches exactly matched and aligned with the logo and color swatches in the tie photo, as closely as I possibly could get them. I copied and made a new layer of the measuring scale, rotated it 90 degrees, then made another copy of it to extend it longer than 1 inch. I placed this new measuring scale directly over the tie just above the location of the nick, and added a red line to show where the right-hand edge of the tie intersects the scale. Assuming that this provides an accurate way of determining the width, this shows that the tie is 1 3/8 inches at the location of the nick: Ashton Gray
  9. Sandy, I thought I had seen where you asked if anyone had a full, un-cropped version of the entire tie that is marked as Commission Exhibit 394, FBI Exhibit C31, but now I can't find where you asked. In any event, if there has not been a concerted, focused effort to wipe any such evidence effectively off of the internet, then it's the damnedest disappearing act I've ever encountered, because the ONLY un-cropped image of it I can find has been almost completely destroyed for the purposes of counting icons; almost all the contrast and details have been drained out of it, and the color has been changed. I can't imagine that was accidental, but given that it's the only copy I can find anywhere, I have COMBINED it in Photoshop with the cropped version you have posted, taking great pains to size them so they match up. This at least puts the ruler back into the image. Here is the result and it's the best I can do: By the way: It has struck me (no pun is intended) that there is NO MEASURING SCALE in any photo I can find of the tie exhibit showing the nick. I have gone to yet more pains to find a way to incorporate one of the NARA measuring scales into it, but I am not posting that right now for technical and time reasons. Probably later tonight I will post it in a way that shows the process of matching measuring scales up to it, but for now I thought I would mention that according to the results I got, the width of the tie at the nick is 1 3/8 inches. Ashton
  10. If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot. Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there? None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation. Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot. All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat. Ashton
  11. Roy, I'm replying separately to two separate parts of your message: The statement that there was a "bullet wound" in JFK's throat is prejudicial and biased. It has never been proven. There was a wound in JFK's throat, period. It is impossible, by all the laws of physics, that it could have been from a bullet or missile. Every single witness who testified that JFK clutched or grabbed at his throat—and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand—did so ONLY AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S FALSE CLAIM TO THE WORLD, IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BULLET ENTRANCE WOUND TO JFK'S THROAT. I'm going to repeat that so that no one reading here, no matter how dull or IQ challenged, can ever claim not to know it: Every single witness who testified that JFK clutched or grabbed at his throat—and they can be counted on the fingers of one hand—did so ONLY AFTER THEIR TESTIMONY HAD BEEN PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S FALSE CLAIM TO THE WORLD, IN THE PRESS CONFERENCE, THAT THERE HAD BEEN A BULLET ENTRANCE WOUND TO THE THROAT. Now anyone who comes again into this thread parroting those PREJUDICED witness statements, and does not acknowledge that those "eyewitness" accounts were PREJUDICED BY PERRY'S CLAIM, will join Prudhomme and Varnell in less time than it took for JFK's clenched fists to fly up IN FRONT OF HIS FACE, because to refuse to acknowledge the PREJUDICE that Perry had created is unspeakable dishonesty with the facts. Ashton
  12. Hi, Roy. Yes, that is a nick, not a hole (the latter assertion being just more disinformation), and what you have suggested is a perfectly reasonable possibility—not small potatoes at all. I originally attempted to do that version, too, but because of extremely compressed time, I only did the animation that I posted. Attempting to "stretch" the flat tie-with-nick image so that it conforms to the "knot" shape, while trying NOT (pun unavoidable) to prejudicially distort evidence, and trying to get the icons to properly align, is an enormously time-consuming and tedious task. If no one else will do it, I promise that I will get back to it as soon as I can find breathing time. Perhaps now that the banshees have been banned from my view, I will be able to. Although there are also other complications that arose in attempting to do it the way you suggest, which I will take up later. Thanks for your interest and rational discussion. Ashton
  13. *PLONK* There. That screeching is out of my life for good. Now I won't have to put up with 800 more repetitions of Carrico's exquisitely ambiguous influenced testimony about a tie knot. Now I won't have to endure someone insisting hysterically, repeatedly, over and over and over and over and over, that the back of a rearview mirror in a photo is a face. Now I won't have to deal with the sad shambles of those too technology challenged to be able to quote messages in a forum—while insisting that they are superior to all others. Now I won't have to be subjected to the tag-team disinformation twins—unless there are others who are determined to be their water carriers by quoting them over and over and over and over again. But there's a solution for that, too. The wonderful thing about the Kook File is that it is a marvel of modern technology, because it is infinitely expanding. There's plenty of room for anyone who would like to join the resident Tweedledee and Tweedledum there, and dance round and round and round until the end of time, singing the same sheepheaded songs endlessly, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and... Ashton
  14. *PLONK* Anybody else want to join him? The Kook File is infinitely expandable, so there is plenty of room. Just let me know. Ashton
  15. I never said that JFK did anything at all with his lapel. I said that Varnell and his "cough-up-a-bullet" homey claimed that JFK had grabbed his tie with his left forefinger, and that THEY HAD MISTAKEN THE LEFT LAPEL FOR THE TIE—but JFK also DID NOT HOOK HIS LEFT LAPEL WITH HIS FOREFINGER, EITHER. In short, they were dead wrong on every single point. It was Varnell who then falsely claimed that I had said anything at all about JFK interacting with his lapel, based either on Varnell's inability to read what I wrote, or on his willful attempt to twist what I said. Either way he was dead wrong, and I don't really care. The video shows clearly that JFK's hands never went anywhere near his throat, his tie, OR his lapel. I'm completely sick of the dishonesty in some people trying to rewrite me. I'm going to say it again to all concerned: IF YOU'RE GOING TO CLAIM THAT I SAID SOMETHING, QUOTE ME, DO NOT REWRITE ME! Anybody who again tries to twist and misrepresent what I have said will go immediately and permanently into the Kook File. I had some of the people in this thread there once, but changed computers and in doing so tried to wipe the slate clean. With some of them, I won't ever make THAT mistake again. They don't change their spots. Ashton
×