Usenet Posts of "The Real Deep Throat"

[Ashton Gray]

In early 2004 a series of messages appeared through anonymous remailers in a variety of usenet newsgroups that were signed "The Real Deep Throat."

I now have collected what I believe is a complete set of the messages. As far as I can determine, these messages were the first indication ever that there was far more to "Watergate" than anyone ever had revealed or discovered in investigation, and that "The Official Story" was nothing but a pack of lies (the prime liars, of course, having been Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post).

One thing that I find particularly fascinating about this series is that on Tuesday, 31 May 2005, just a little over a year after this series of posts to usenet, the dodderning, senile Mark Felt was trotted out before the cameras in a staggeringly obscene circus to try to sell the world on his having been Woodward and Bernstein's "Deep Throat"—even though they had vowed that they would never reveal the phantom "Deep Throat's" identity until he was dead (that assuming, arguendo, that they ever had a "Deep Throat," which they didn't).

Though the knee, of necessity, was slow indeed to jerk, the knee jerked. The perpetrators of the "Watergate" fraud somehow had to reinforce the vicious hoax they had invested so much in.

Of course the only "Deep Throat" there ever was consisted of Woodward's own connections to U.S. intelligence and his own fictions to cover up for CIA and NSA.

Now John Simkin has introduced yet a new "Deep Throat" in the anonymous person of an "e-mailer who was close to Nixon" who apparently has come along, not unlike the pop-up (but mum) Mark Felt, to confirm that "The Official Story" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Since all these "Deep Throats" are springing up like the spawn of dragon's teeth to sing another aria of "The Official Story," I thought it only fitting to record here, in date sequence below, the 2004 revelations of "The Real Deep Throat"—who sings a different tune altogether.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the first of the posts in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. This message appeared in the newsgroup misc.legal (and several other newsgroups) on 12 January 2004:

Date: 12 Jan 2004 08:12:59 -0000

Message-ID: <O6H6E8TW37998.1340162037@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a lie.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it.

That's why the so-called "logs" of the allegedly tapped DNC phone were always described as having been "worthless" by the players who peddled the story, and were destroyed without anyone investigating the case ever seeing any such alleged "logs." Of course they were worthless: they were fictional, manufactured work-product "logs" filtered through Liddy, not logs of actual phone calls, because the phone was never tapped.

That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the break-in on 16-17 June 1972 found no trace of any bugging device on any phone: there never was one.

That's why Liddy carefully made a big production of having letterhead printed that was emblazoned with the "top secret" name of his so-called "covert intelligence" operation - GEMSTONE - then made sure plenty of people saw it. GEMSTONE was not an intelligence operation: it was only a COVER for a major intelligence operation.

That's why the Cubans actually did hold an "Ameritas" dinner on 26 May 1972 at the Watergate: to make damned sure there was a record of their presence there and that the staff would remember them. But Liddy and Hunt weren't there. Ask them where they were. Ask them where they really were. (They'll tell you they were "in the vicinity." They are career liars.)

That's why the other career xxxx, Alfred Baldwin, claimed under oath that Liddy and the others were at McGovern headquarters at 2:00 a.m. during the night of 26-27 May 1972 - with Liddy purportedly riding around for a half hour with Baldwin and McCord - yet Liddy claims he was involved in the "first attempt" of the "first break-in" at the Watergate that night, using the "Ameritas business dinner" ploy. They both are career liars lying to cover up where they and Hunt really were.

That's why the other career xxxx, Bernard Barker, swore in Congress that his "only job" on the alleged "first break-in" was to "search for documents to be photographed," while career xxxx Liddy swore under oath that the only purpose of the team in the alleged "first break-in" was "to place a tap on the telephone in the office of Lawrence O'Brien and to place a room monitoring device in the office of Lawrence O'Brien" - neither of which was done. Why? Because there was no "first break-in" at all: it was a planned cover story and alibi for what really was done.

And that's why they actually did break in, and arranged very carefully to get "caught," on the night of 16-17 June 1972: the only reason was so the lie about 26, 27, and 28 May 1972 could be put into the record.

Why the big lie? Why get themselves convicted of a burglary? What were they really covering up that would be important enough to go to jail? Here's a hint: it's better than going to the chair.

Ask Hunt and Liddy why they had gone to the Pierre Hotel in New York City eight months earlier, on 4 September 1971 (the day after the equally phony Fielding office "break-in" using the exact same CIA-trained personnel/liars - same thing). Ask them what they were actually doing there, 3/4 of a mile from the Times Square "lab" of CIA's Cleve Backster, just before the hook-up of Backster and Ingo Swann.

There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972. There were no "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972. It never was anything but a cover story and alibi for one of the dirtiest deeds ever done.

The surviving principals and accomplices, as well as the surviving accessories to and after the fact, need no reminder that there is no statute of limitations on what they did and have covered up.

L. Patrick Gray was right on 17 April 1973 when he told Lowell Weicker "the lid is going to blow off." He just didn't know it was going to take over 30 years to blow.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: "Two seven thousand." So who's going to fry for all that hugger-mugger, Miss Priss? Better start squealing, piG-Man. Somebody else already has.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the second of the usenet messages of "The Real Deep Throat": Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972? It was posted on 13 January 2004, the day after the first post (above):

Date: 13 Jan 2004 20:51:52 -0000

Message-ID: <KJ7FERHZ37999.6610185185@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972?

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

Why is Liddy lying about where he really was on 26 May 1972?

Note the ALL CAPS EMPHASIS in the following excerpts of Liddy's self-conflicting stories of the evening of 26 May 1972.

CAREER-xxxx LIDDY'S FIRST STORY IN HIS BOOK, "WILL":

"On 26 May [1972] the Cubans all moved into the Watergate Hotel

under assumed names, posing as a group working for a corporation

named Ameritas. ...We had found that the Continental Room door to

the corridor was equipped with an electric alarm, so we couldn't

get through the banquet room after hours without first defeating

it. McCord discovered that the door alarm wasn't activated until

11 P.M. That proved THE KEY TO OUR PLAN.

"Ameritas told the Watergate Hotel that it wanted to hold a

dinner meeting and presentation. To allay suspicion and kill time

Hunt had a multicourse banquet ordered and rented a motion

picture projector AND TRAVEL FILM to play after dinner. ...We

expected the DNC headquarters would be vacant well before 11 P.M.

on a Friday night.

"MCCORD...EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE BANQUET... . Banquet time

arrived and THE REST OF US HAD A GOOD TIME, even POLISHING OFF

MCCORD'S MEAL. The film went on as scheduled and WAS SO BORING

the waiters were encouraged to clean up and leave early. WE RAN

THE FILM a couple of times for the benefit of anyone looking

in... . Finally, at 10:30 P.M, with NO WORD FROM MCCORD that the

DNC offices had yet been vacated, a guard making his periodic

rounds looked in and told US WE'D HAVE TO LEAVE.

"EVERYONE DID, EXCEPT HUNT AND GONZALEZ, who stayed behind

to turn out the lights, hoping TO RECEIVE WORD FROM MCCORD OVER

THE TRANSCEIVER... ."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"

"WILL"

CAREER-xxxx LIDDY'S SECOND STORY, UNDER OATH, IN VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION 6 DECEMBER 1996:

"[O]n the 26th of May we made our first of three attempts. Took

three attempts to get into there, because while it might not look

it, it is a fairly high-security building. There were some

Federal Reserve offices in there, as I recall, and so you had

guards from that downstairs, and then you had the building guards

and so on.

"In any event, the first plan was to have the Cuban cohort

pose as businessmen, salespeople. And so we created an

organization called Ameritas, A-m-e-r-i-t-a-s, and we rented a

ground floor room in which to hold a business dinner, supposedly.

We had a camera--a projector, rather, and screen. We had A FILM

APPROPRIATE TO TRAINING OF BUSINESS PEOPLE. And the object of the

exercise was to stay there so long that the guards would leave

them alone, and the alarm which led from there into the office

building WOULD BE DISARMED BY MR. MCCORD. And that would be how

we would get in.

"Bear in mind that I WAS NOT AT THAT DINNER. I WAS PRESENT

IN THE AREA BUT NOT AT THAT DINNER."

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

No. 92-1807: Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean, Plaintiffs,

v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin,

G. Gordon Liddy, and Phillip Mackin Bailley, Defendants.

Liddy had eight years to get his story straight about 26 May 1972 before he published the pack of lies he called "WILL" in 1980. Liddy had 11 more years to get his story straight before he "completely updated" his pack of lies called "WILL" in 1991. Liddy had five more years to get his story straight before he was put under oath, on videotape, in deposition in December 1996.

Can you count the contradictions?

The alarm was supposed to be "disarmed by McCord" after 11:00 p.m., this was "the key" to their plan - yet McCord "excused himself from the banquet" before it was even served, never to return, and suddenly, somehow, became a look-out checking for whether the DNC headquarters was vacant or not?

The film was a "travel film" - but also somehow was "a film appropriate to training of business people"?

Liddy was there at the banquet, helping to polish off McCord's plate, being bored by the travel/business-training film, and left with the rest when told to - but "was not at that dinner"?

So which time was Liddy lying: in his book, or under oath?

The correct answer is: both times. Liddy is a career xxxx.

It is true that Liddy was not at that dinner on 26 May 1972. That one part he finally told the truth about under oath in December 1996, and proved conclusively in the process that he'd been lying for twenty-four years about it. Hunt was not in any liquor cabinet on that night, either, as Liddy went on to claim.

Now ask them where they really were.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it.

Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate. The truth makes Watergate as you know it look like a TeleTubbies episode.

While you're at it, you'd better find out what Alfred Baldwin was really doing at Andrews Air Force Base on 20 May 1972, and you'd better get the flight test logs for the then-new Air Force One 27000 during the end of May 1972 - while Nixon was traveling on 26000, lifting toasts in Moscow and Leningrad.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: Somebody very wise once said, "It's the cover-up that gets you." The name escapes me.

FOOTNOTE: On Sunday, 4 June 1972, exactly one week after the alleged 28 May 1972 "first break-in" at the DNC (which never happened), Ingo Swann flew to California and was picked up at the San Francisco airport by NSA's Hal Puthoff.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the third of the usenet messages from "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office. It was posted 15 January 2004, two days after the second message:

Date: 15 Jan 2004 03:36:27 -0000

Message-ID: <M17TZYNV38000.9419791667@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

G. Gordon Liddy claims that on Monday, 29 May (Memorial Day) 1972, he delivered to Jeb Magruder Polaroid photographs of the interior of the Watergate office of Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien. Liddy claims that the purported Polaroids had been taken by Bernard Barker on the night before, 28 May 1972, during an alleged "successful entry" into the DNC offices at the Watergate. Liddy is a xxxx. There were no such Polaroid photographs. There was no such "entry" on 28 May 1972.

First, here is career-xxxx Liddy in his book, "WILL," lying about the Polaroid photos of Lawrence O'Brien's office, which he claims was "proof" of a "successful entry" the night before:

"On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the

successful entry into Democratic National Committee

headquarters in the Watergate. For proof, I showed him

Polaroid photographs of the interior of Larry O'Brien's

office, taken by Bernard Barker. Magruder was pleased."

G. Gordon Liddy

Book, "WILL"

Liddy is a xxxx.

There were no Polaroid photographs of the interior of Lawrence O'Brien's office taken by Bernard Barker on 28 May 1972 - not according to Bernard Barker himself in testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee.

Of course the main reason is that there never was any "first entry" into DNC headquarters on 28 May 1972 at all. But the Senate Watergate Committee believed there had been, and Barker had testified that during the alleged "first entry" they had found no useful documents. Therefore Senator Daniel Inouye asked the reasonable question of why the burglars had broken into the Watergate "again" on the night of 16-17 June 1972, the night that they were arrested:

SENATOR INOUYE: "...[W]hy did you go there again if you

realized that the documents you were looking for were not

there?"

BERNARD BARKER: "Uh, it was then evident that we were not in

the office of the Chairman. In our second entry we finally

came to the office of the Chairman."

Testimony of Bernard Barker

Senate Watergate Hearings 1973

Bernard Barker admits they were "NOT IN THE OFFICE" of DNC Chairman Lawrence O'Brien on 28 May 1972, the date of the alleged "first entry."

Bernard Barker says it was not until the night of 16-17 June 1972, during the purported "second entry" (really the one and only entry) that they "FINALLY CAME TO THE OFFICE" of Lawrence O'Brien.

Then how could G. Gordon Liddy, on 29 May 1972, have delivered to Magruder Polaroid photos of the interior of O'Brien's office, supposedly taken by Bernard Barker on the night of 28 May 1972?

Easy: Liddy is a xxxx.

The "Polaroid" story is just one more of Liddy's lies to help embellish the CIA-created cover story they all told, the alibi for where Liddy really was - along with others - and what he really had been doing on those few fateful days at the end of May 1972. Liddy is a career xxxx. He is much, much more than a mere xxxx, though, or even a third-rate burglar. "Third-rate?" No, at least give the Devil his due: how about "First Degree" instead?

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO GEORGEY-PORGEY LIDDY: It's _all_ going to come oozing out. Slowly. Every bit of it. Are you going to just sit and watch it like a slow bleed? Or are you going to be a man for once in your life and tell what you _really_ did and the reasons why you did it? Why do you still hide it behind the lies, hypocrite, if you were being such a good "soldier"?

Well, don't worry: your "soldierly" act will be burned into the permanent record for you - with or without your own rationale for what you did. Was it only _malum prohibitum_ Gordy? Or wasn't it in fact _malum in se_? Isn't that why you've agreed to keep it hidden in your black heart all these years? Or will you say you were "only following orders" like a "good soldier" for the good of "national security"?

Are you going to just sit and watch it all ooze out like a slow bleed while still attempting to protect your "principles" and your "principals"? Both have been compromised.

Don't worry, though: no matter what you do now, the entire sordid story _will_ be told for posterity - with or without you. Those soldier-boys of yours are going to have your TRUE legacy to live with their entire long lives - however it gets told - and will be able to look back at their photos taken with you in their soldier-boy costumes (real photos, not the phony Polaroids you lied about), being the apple of their daddy's eye. And won't what you did bring honor to those costumes and those boys!

Will it, Gordy? Polish that brass.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the fourth of the posts of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, posted on 17 January 2004: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate. At this message, "The Real Deep Throat" started adding an encrypted PGP signature to the posts, possibly because someone had started forging messages and signing them "The Real Deep Throat" (although I don't have those, if that was the case).

Date: 17 Jan 2004 05:00:24 -0000

Message-ID: <P88QRCDU38003.0002777778@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

The electronic "bugs" purportedly planted in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972 have always been described as being the work product of one man and one man only: James McCord. No one has ever claimed any other participation in the alleged planting of the electronic "bugs."

McCord was Liddy's expert, his "wire man" for the black-bag job.

In sworn testimony of 6 December 1996, G. Gordon Liddy described McCord as having had "a background as a tech in the Central Intelligence Agency" and also having had a background "in the FBI." That's why Liddy says he hired McCord for the job. In that same sworn testimony, Liddy says: "I recruited Mr. McCord."

McCord himself always agreed that all of his instructions for the planting of the purported electronic bugs, as well as all of the financing for them, came to him directly from G. Gordon Liddy - no matter who allegedly was ordering Liddy around.

Here is McCord himself on that subject in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee:

SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to

plant those two bugs?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set

the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were

first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ."

Now here's your first quiz question:

Where, exactly, were these purported "bugs" planted by McCord in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972?

Can you answer? Do you know? Or are you confused about it? You should be. The two, and only two, people who claim to have masterminded and carried out the "wire" part of the operation certainly are. Let's see just how confused they are.

First, let's hear from career xxxx G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony regarding what had been planted by McCord, and where, during the alleged "first break-in" of 28 May 1972 - all on orders directly from Liddy to McCord (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

LIDDY: "[T]hey did what they were supposed to do, which was

to place a tap on THE TELEPHONE IN THE OFFICE OF LAWRENCE

O'BRIEN and to place A ROOM MONITORING DEVICE IN THE OFFICE

OF LAWRENCE O'BRIEN. ...There were two things they were to

do. One was the telephone of Larry O'Brien, wiretap, and the

other was a ROOM MONITORING DEVICE OF LARRY O'BRIEN'S

OFFICE."

- G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996

Well, Liddy should know. Liddy was the one who issued the orders to McCord about where to plant the devices. Liddy was the commander of the operation. Liddy was the one who had provided McCord with the funds for the devices. Liddy was the one who claims that he stayed in the "command post" - as he calls it - throughout the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972.

So Liddy assures us that on this alleged "first break-in" of Watergate, there were TWO bugs to be installed on his orders: one a phone tap of Lawrence O'Brien's phone, the other a room monitoring device in O'Brien's office.

And Liddy assures us that he, as the "command post" boy, was convinced that McCord had done what he was "supposed to do" during the alleged "first break-in."

Now here's the view from the other career xxxx involved, the CIA's own electronics whiz-kid James McCord, the very man who claims he installed the bugs Liddy had ordered planted, testifying under oath before the Senate about the instructions he says he had been given by G. Gordon Liddy for the alleged "first break-in" at the Watergate:

SENATOR BAKER: What was the electronic assignment that you

had?

MCCORD: Installation of the technical bugging devices in the

Democratic National Committee... .

SENATOR BAKER: Did you have instructions as to where they

should be placed?

MCCORD: Yes.

SENATOR BAKER: Where?

MCCORD: In the offices themselves in connection with senior

personnel officers of the Democratic National Committee, and

specifically, Mr. O'Brien's telephone extension.

SENATOR BAKER: How many bugs did you plant?

MCCORD: Two.

SENATOR BAKER: And where were they? ...One of them was on

Mr.O'Brien's telephone?

MCCORD: That was an extension...that was identified as Mr.

O'Brien's. The second was Mr. Oliver's.

SENATOR BAKER: The second one was where?

MCCORD: In a telephone that belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver...

SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to

plant those two bugs?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set

the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were

first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ."

McCord himself - who should know - says that it was G. Gordon Liddy who gave him, McCord, the instructions and who set the priorities for the planting of electronic devices in the alleged "first break-in."

Yet McCord himself - who should know - says that he planted two and only two bugs on the alleged "first break-in" - and says they were both phone bugs, not one phone bug and one room bug, as Liddy claims.

But if that is true, then why would career-xxxx McCord and career-xxxx Liddy have had the following discussion that career-xxxx Liddy claims took place between them on 5 June 1972, one week after the alleged "first break-in":

Monday, 5 June 1972

"I spoke to Mr. McCord...and I said, 'Where is the product of

THE ROOM MONITORING DEVICE?' And he said that THE ROOM

MONITORING DEVICE either was defective, or had inadvertently

been placed on a wall behind which was concealed a massive

steel support beam, which would absorb all of the small

amount of RF energy that the FM transmitter was putting out.

And so I said, 'Well, we are just going to have to make it

right... .'"

- G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996

Are you confused? You should be. That's all they have ever been trying to do: confuse you. But it isn't over yet. Career-xxxx McCord went on in sworn Senate testimony to further embellish his and Liddy's lies when asked why they went "back in" to the DNC headquarters at the Watergate. Here's what he said while making a running fool of Senator Howard Baker:

SENATOR BAKER: Now, you weren't apprehended on this first

occasion, Memorial weekend. What was the purpose of the

second entry into the Democratic national headquarters?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had told me...to check to see what the

malfunctioning of the second device that was put in...and see

what the problem was, because it was one of the two things:

either a malfunction of the equipment or the fact that the

installation of the device was in a room which was surrounded

by four walls. In other words, it was shielded, and he wanted

this corrected and ANOTHER DEVICE INSTALLED...A ROOM BUG AS

OPPOSED TO A DEVICE ON A TELEPHONE INSTATED IN MR.O'BRIEN'S

OFFICE... .

Why do these career-liars constantly contradict each other about the "bugs" McCord purportedly planted in the Watergate on 28 May 1972 on orders of G. Gordon Liddy?

BECAUSE THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS.

The entire story, start to finish, is a LIE.

That's why you can't correctly answer your first quiz question: there is no correct answer possible.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."

That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the actual break-in - on 16-17 June 1972 - found no trace of any bugging device on any phone.

THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS at any relevant time alleged by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and their other CIA co-conspirators concerning the phantom "first break-in."

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate any of their stories about the alleged "first break-in." Why? Because there never can be any "evidence" of something that never occurred.

The entire story of the alleged "first break-in" of DNC headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, and of two previous "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, is nothing but a cheap, shoddy spy story written by a megalomaniacal hack fiction writer, G. Gordon Liddy, and his CIA co-conspirators. And none of them can even keep the story straight.

It's the same reason why thirty years later no one can answer the other burning question you all still want the final answer to:

WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the

Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the

Watergate?

Haven't ten million gallons of ink been spilled and a million hours of air time and uncountable hours of court and Congressional time been squandered in writhing over that one maddening, mercurial, torturous, agonized, harrowing, excruciating question?

Haven't countless lives been ruined, paved, in the 30-year path of the stampede to find the answer?

Do you still ache to know, to find out, to have the mystery finally solved, even after the evidence that's now been being laid out before you?

No, you're smarter than that. You're not actually the fools that Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA co-conspirators have always believed you to be. You are beginning to get the facts now - - not just their self-supporting, highly-financed fictions.

So here's your next quiz question. Let's see how you do now:

WHO was it? WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate?

Of course there is only one possible answer:

No one.

No one ordered it, because it never happened.

It is a lie. It is a fiction. It is a fairy tale.

That's why no one in thirty years has ever been able to solve WHO ordered it. And that is the only reason.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie.

There is no evidence that it ever occurred, because it didn't.

There is only self-corroboration by the co-conspirators. That is all there has ever been as "evidence" - that and some "evidence" that they carefully planted in their own hotel and motel rooms, and in McCord's home, and in Hunt's White House safe for the express purpose of being found after they were "caught" on 17 June 1972 in the purported "second" break-in.

In "corroborating" each other about the phony "first break-in" - even as poorly, as pathetically, as sophomorically as they did that job - they made complete running fools of a President, his staff, Senators, the FBI, the public, and a panting, foaming press who gobbled up and spread their self-supporting lies.

Until the Senators, the FBI, the public, and the press find out what Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin were REALLY doing those fateful last days of May 1972 - while the CIA-trained "Cuban cohort" was busy providing alibis for them - the Senators, the FBI, the public, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the press will continue to be the running fools that these coordinated liars have made them out to be for thirty long years.

How did they bring down a President? How did they make fools of the Senate, the public, and the press? What did they do it with? Here's what they did it with: hack science-fiction that no pulp rag would ever publish about electronic "bugs" that never were planted at all.

The question is not "who ordered the first break-in." The key is not "follow the money." Those are the red-herring questions and tips that were planted as traps for the running fools.

The questions that actually must be answered are:

WHO ordered the FICTION of a "first break-in" to be created?

WHO created it?

WHY was it created?

WHAT were Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin REALLY

doing while the "Cuban cohort" was providing them with an

alibi for 26, 27, and 28 May 1972?

WHO were they really working for?

WHAT were the real "national security" issues that made it

worth going to jail, destroying a President, and making fools

of the entire world?

WHAT was it REALLY covering up?

Liddy knows. Hunt knows.

And above all remember this: the head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQAidZrTZk3yf4K11AQFdQgf8CrrHR8jCTg4PnXoqk1VK8mPCLTieq0Me

Wss1hoRVaCvUwxAZI4nfYiGQvmgvEwbzJTihVINIpg8dWP00k6vAtgvfrrT/K9s3

vWlPOR1phSS7pKSNGwKZCT+okB22VxXUk8jXKVa0JSiBd/efVkvYPNYe2n96/01C

LgUy7B3nImweuJc3U1W2NjxjkoMCiUEAWf3abBfRf42Miq5d+gaop6VT64QyuhjU

doXs6qWehAgEWMr9/JuxVQl+jLEIbbCPCS6CktmMj4zekXjFBF0DvlcjSLJk3JB8

3YVtV3QpvF8QBGB11WNPY3nihCn00yx3xtIwyMVrGyoVoWjFf6Z/Tg==

=P/6W

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the fifth message in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other. It was posted 19 January 2004:

Date: 19 Jan 2004 04:30:31 -0000

Message-ID: <4YOK3JTW38004.979525463@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

G. Gordon Liddy claims that he was first introduced to Alfred Baldwin on Wednesday, 31 May 1972 - AFTER the alleged "first break-in" of Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate - and that their "introduction" was made in the dark "observation post" room in the Howard Johnson's motel across from the Watergate, using only aliases:

"On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the

successful entry into Democratic National Committee (DNC)

headquarters in the Watergate ...When I had nothing from

McCord by Wednesday [31 May 1972], I asked him why.

He...offered to take me up to the observation post to explain

the difficulty... . The observation post was dark. Inside was

a man I could hardly see, and McCord introduced us

monosyllabically, using aliases."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"

"WILL"

Liddy has sworn under oath that the man he claims he was introduced to for the first time "monosyllabically, using aliases" inside the "observation post" that night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, was Alfred Baldwin:

LIDDY: The listening post was across Virginia Avenue

Southwest, in a room in the Howard Johnson's motel.

QUESTION: And did you have occasion to visit that room?

LIDDY: Yes. Mr. McCord brought me there to see the setup, so

to speak. It was after dark. ...And I was sort of

monosyllabically introduced to a man who turned out to be Mr.

Baldwin, who was seated there and was observing.

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996

But that's not what Alfred Baldwin says. Alfred Baldwin swore under oath before the Senate Watergate Committee that he and Liddy were first introduced NOT "after dark" on the night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, but FIVE DAYS EARLIER, during the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972:

SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Baldwin...you returned to Connecticut on

May the 23rd and came back to Washington on May the 26th; is

that correct?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct - Friday.

SENATOR WEICKER: And you returned to Room 419 at the Howard

Johnson's on May 26th. Now, when you entered Room 419 on May

the 26th, what did you see?

ALFRED BALDWIN: ...When I entered the room it was

approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon... . Mr. McCord was

in the room. ...I was told that some other individuals would

be coming to the room that were part of the security force

and that in view of their position they would be introduced

under aliases... . Two individuals came to the room... .

SENATOR WEICKER: Now, subsequently, have you identified who

those two men were that came into the room?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. In the FBI photographic

display they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the

Senate Watergate hearings

The meeting Baldwin describes above was not "after dark," as Liddy claims: it was in the afternoon. Baldwin clearly identifies both Liddy and Hunt - together - as having been in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's with him and McCord that afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972.

Room 419 of the Howard Johnson's also was not the "observation post" that Liddy describes in his account of their alleged "first meeting" - there was no way to see into DNC headquarters from room 419 at all. The so-called "observation post" was room 723 of the Howard Johnson's, and records show that room 723 was not registered in the name of McCord Associates until Monday, 29 May 1972. That's three days AFTER the meeting Alfred Baldwin describes above as having taken place in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's on the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972.

But it's even worse: in order to embellish the alibi he was providing for himself, Liddy, Hunt, and McCord, Alfred Baldwin went on under oath to describe more events that he claimed happened later that same night: 26-27 May 1972. Not only does he claim he was with Liddy and McCord later that night, he claims that Liddy and McCord freely discussed their purported covert activities while riding around in McCord's car with Baldwin sitting between them in the front seat:

SENATOR WEICKER: Now, that same evening, the same evening of

May the 26th, was there a trip to McGovern headquarters?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct, there was. ...We [baldwin and

McCord] proceeded to McGovern headquarters. ...This was late

in the evening, approximately 1:00 or 2:00 in the early

morning hours... . Mr. McCord had been in communication over

a walkie-talkie unit with some other individuals, and...we

stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An individual

alighted from the car and came into the front seat of Mr.

McCord's car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and

this individual.

SENATOR WEICKER: Can you tell who that individual was?

ALFRED BALDWIN: It was Mr. Liddy.

SENATOR WEICKER: And did you succeed in getting into McGovern

headquarters on that evening?

ALFRED BALDWIN: No. They drove around - Mr. McCord and Mr.

Liddy did all the talking - and they drove around...over a

half hour. As a matter of fact we drove up the alleyway next

to the building. They discussed the problem of lights; there

was a discussion of whether or not their man was still

inside; there were several discussions and finally Mr. Liddy

said that - "We'll abort the mission." That was his terms.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the

Senate Watergate hearings

Yet Liddy swore under oath that the first time he met Alfred Baldwin was not until FIVE DAYS LATER, on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, "after dark," in the so-called "observation post" at the Howard Johnson's, when they purportedly were "monosyllabically introduced" to each other by McCord.

So who's lying? Is it career xxxx G. Gordon Liddy? Or is career xxxx Alfred Baldwin?

Of course there's only one answer: they BOTH are lying.

Where is a scrap of evidence for any of it?

There isn't any. Fiction does not produce evidence.

The only "evidence" there ever has been for the alleged events of the end of May 1972 concerning Watergate is the juvenile pulp fiction you've been reading in "testimony" above: a two-bit spy story by a two-bit megalomaniac; a pretentious, self-aggrandizing fable written by a hack fiction writer named G. Gordon Liddy and his CIA co-conspirators, a story that MAD magazine wouldn't have published in "Spy vs. Spy." It wouldn't have passed the cut for a Three Stooges episode. And the actors in the drama can't even keep their idiotic "story" straight when trying to tell the lies to cover for each other.

What were they covering up? What is Liddy STILL covering up? Why all the elaborate, embellished lies - under oath - to account for each other's whereabouts those fateful last days of May, 1972? Why are they giving each other alibis, and "confessing" to penny-ante crimes in order to do it?

What were the REAL crimes they told this spy story to cover up?

HINT: They are INTERNATIONAL crimes.

Where were they REALLY between 25 and 29 May 1972?

HINT: They weren't in D.C.

What were they REALLY doing? Who were they REALLY working for?

HINT: Liddy knows. Hunt knows. The DCI knows. So does EVERY DCI THAT HAS EVER HELD THE OFFICE SINCE MAY 1972. Read 'em and weep.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed, nor were Liddy, Hunt, McCord, or Baldwin anywhere near McGovern headquarters on the dates they claim. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." They only "corroborated" each other.

Every DCI since knows the truth. The head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQArqqLTZk3yf4K11AQFcYwf/f8laZMNSfCfQxZE6qThBJe9BdQcuPpVQ

rwY/4iPpTz6J0Rf3VPi7P9nuBYcKOcu3/jmOVs9O4+6cWoGkC/iYvFmr+2t7LkoK

C9h7RXIzTWCslaQ2COCTO4qB7iE1ozLrXALh6RFnPzoYdLnkJ28jc/PltB9yjN72

9PlXcVSR+5JM9dtMAheRZzWofV6Z/CVvNCESlvkVDf0JslxH1z+Xyo6umxiqBZq3

HiLPD6T5UUKEQHru/798pSd+bOJsrgBXfQTTyVQUhmSWwgqJ+bQ6YOnXQw8IMTDO

6idzV0Umk15TLAXyoBsypXwBia9Qn1PhuuhCiEmlx9/qxZ8qNum5cg==

=4jNE

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Edited October 12, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

This is the sixth and last message of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, What Sally Harmony Saw, posted on 23 January 2004. Why did such a short series of anonymous messages scare the principals of the "Watergate" hoax so bad that in less than a year and a half they would try such a desperate measure as trotting out the mute fossil Mark Felt as a completely implausible "Deep Throat"? Here is the last in the series:

Date: 23 Jan 2004 12:46:30 -0000

Message-ID: <4RUUQEI038009.3239583333@anonymous>

From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)

Subject: What Sally Harmony Saw

Newsgroups: misc.legal

Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.

It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Sally Harmony was G. Gordon Liddy's secretary when on 5 June 1972 Liddy had her type "logs" of telephone conversations that Liddy provided to her. The crisp and efficient typing of Sally Harmony not only resulted in the resignation of a President of the United States, it also paved the way for the creation of the CIA's top-secret Remote Viewing program at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) less than four months after her lithe and nimble fingers typed the last period on Liddy's logs.

Why? Because as it turned out, these were no ordinary phone logs that the accommodating Sally Harmony typed up for George Gordon Battle Liddy. To hear Liddy tell it, he had been the mastermind of a hyper-clandestine "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, with the purpose of having CIA's James McCord plant an illegal electronic "bug" on the phone of Lawrence O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

So, naturally, Liddy had his own secretary type up the phone logs from this super-secret, illegal operation of his. Wouldn't you?

But Liddy went one better: he not only had Sally Harmony type these allegedly illicit logs, he instructed her to type them on special stationery Liddy also provided for the purpose, stationery that had emblazoned across the top, in color, a mysterious name he had dreamed up: GEMSTONE.

Of course the rational mind balks right there. Of course any self-respecting editor of even the cheapest, cheesiest, trashiest cloak-and-dagger fiction would laugh out loud at such a ludicrous premise before wadding it up and throwing it at somebody.

But in 1973 whole committees of United States Senators sat with furrowed brow for the cameras, listening to just such trumpery. So-called journalists took to wearing tennis shoes because they couldn't get to phones fast enough to suit their editors in order to hold the presses for this lunacy. Special counsels for Congressional Committees frowned and pursed their lips and steepled their hands and asked deadly serious questions about this hogwash. Here the guileless Sally Harmony answers questions put to her by Special Counsels to the Watergate Committee, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson - at enormous taxpayer expense:

MR. DASH: Did you type these telephone logs on any particular

stationery?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes; Mr. Liddy had printed a stationery with

the name "Gemstone" across the top of it... .

MR. DASH: Did you have any directions as to how you were to

use this stationery? When were you to use the so-called

"Gemstone" stationery?

SALLY HARMONY: I used it for the telephone conversations that

I typed.

MR. DASH: For the telephone conversations?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes. ...

MR. THOMPSON: ...[T]he printed Gemstone stationery, how many

times did you use that?

SALLY HARMONY: Perhaps two or three, Mr. Thompson; I cannot

be definite on that.

MR. THOMPSON: The printed Gemstone stationery was used only

on the illegal - on the telephone bug results?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes, as I recall.

But from WHAT did Sally type these logs of alleged phone taps? WHAT had Liddy provided her to type from?

WHAT did Sally Harmony see?

It's not an idle question, because ONLY Sally Harmony's typed version of the logs, with GEMSTONE emblazoned across them, reportedly got distributed to and seen by others besides Liddy, and thereby ultimately brought down a President of the United States. ONLY Sally Harmony's version of the logs made it possible for the CIA to enter into a top-secret contract with Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann on 1 October 1972 to develop "remote viewing" for military intelligence purposes.

So WHAT did Sally see?

To answer that question, it's necessary to pause in this story of skullduggery long enough to trace the provenance of these purported "logs." After all, they did topple a President of the United States from office and sent many people to jail, so surely it would be worth allocating at least a few miserly paragraphs to a review of the claims for their very existence.

How did these history-making, history-changing, infamous records of allegedly bugged phone calls make their way from an illegal wiretap in DNC headquarters, through G. Gordon Liddy, to the neat and tidy desk of his prosaically obliging secretary at the Republican national campaign headquarters?

What did Sally Harmony see, and how did it come to her?

Immediately a confusion arises for anyone attempting to trace that crucial path because Liddy and two of his co-conspirators have alleged that there were TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the phone logs, BOTH versions described as being TYPED:

1. Allegedly, there was an ORIGINAL version typed directly by

Liddy's co-conspirator, Alfred Baldwin, while listening to

the output of the phone bug that supposedly had been planted

by their fellow co-conspirator, the CIA's own James McCord.

These purportedly went from Baldwin via McCord to Liddy. This

alleged version of the logs will be referred to as the

BALDWIN VERSION of the logs.

2. There is the SECOND version, typed by Sally Harmony on

GEMSTONE stationery on orders from G. Gordon Liddy. This is

the ONLY version purportedly seen by people associated in

various ways with President Nixon. (There are too many

conflicting stories about who did or did not see them, but

that is neither here nor there for these purposes: whoever

saw logs or did not see logs, ONLY this SECOND version was

distributed.) This distributed version will be referred to as

the DISTRIBUTED HARMONY VERSION.

Consider #1 above: the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of typed logs. Did Sally Harmony see THAT version of the logs? Is that what Liddy gave her? Is THAT what Sally Harmony saw?

No, it is not. Sally Harmony never saw them.

The D.C. police investigating Watergate never saw them.

The FBI investigating Watergate never saw them.

The Congressional Watergate committees never saw them.

The press never saw them.

In fact, only three people in the world - all of them admitted co-conspirators - have ever claimed to have seen the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. Not surprisingly, they are G. Gordon Liddy, the CIA's James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin.

Here is what Liddy has claimed in sworn videotaped testimony that he was getting from McCord and Baldwin:

LIDDY: I wasn't getting any tapes, nor was I getting

transcriptions of anything. I was getting logs. ...And the

stuff was just of no use at all. It was stuff like

hairdressing appointments and somebody going to take a trip

somewhere, and personal stuff like that. ...These logs were

so badly done, misspellings and all the rest of it, that I

felt compelled to edit them. And I did that through my

secretary, Ms. Harmony, and I tried to clean them up a little

bit and leave out the worst of it, try to include the best of

it, which wasn't very much.

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony

6 December 1996

Well, Liddy should know - he's the one who claims to have been receiving the original BALDWIN VERSION logs from Alfred Baldwin, via James McCord. And Liddy, with his background in law enforcement, certainly understands the difference between a "log" of calls and a verbatim "transcription" of actual conversations.

Now here's what James McCord said in sworn testimony about these alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. McCord is being questioned under oath by Sam Dash, Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

MR. DASH: Could you briefly describe...what actually would be

entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type?

MCCORD: It would be similar to any other telephone

conversation that one person might make to another, beginning

with a statement on his log of the time of the call, who was

calling who, A SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS SAID during the

conversation itself, including names of persons who were

mentioned... .

Testimony of James McCord

Well, that seems more or less consistent with what Liddy claims to have been receiving, except McCord adds that there was a "summary" of each phone call as well.

Unfortunately, what Liddy and McCord claim Alfred Baldwin was producing isn't what Alfred Baldwin himself said in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee:

SENATOR ERVIN. The information you got while you were at the

Howard Johnson [across] from the Democratic headquarters,

what form was it in when you gave it to Mr. McCord?

BALDWIN. The initial day, the first day that I recorded the

conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day [Monday,

29 May 1972]...when he [McCord] returned to the room he

brought an electric typewriter. He instructed me in the upper

left-hand corner to print - or by typewriter...the date, the

page, and then proceed down into the body and in

chronological order put the time and then the contents of the

conversation... .

SENATOR ERVIN: And you typed a summary of the conversations

you overheard?

BALDWIN. Well, they weren't exactly a summary. I would say

almost verbatim, Senator.

SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin

Yes, that's what Baldwin said: "almost verbatim." And he should know. After all, he's the one - and the only one, according to their stories - who purportedly sat 'round the clock for two weeks in early June with headphones on, listening to the output of a bug that McCord allegedly had planted in the DNC, and typing his fingers to the bone. He's the one who had to do all the typing of the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of phone logs.

Alfred Baldwin must have been some special kind of typist. Even court reporters would be in awe. Certainly Sally Harmony would have been impressed. So would anyone who has ever tried to type an "almost verbatim" record of a conversation in progress.

And to think: he spent all that time typing "almost verbatim" transcripts of conversations about hair appointments, trips somebody was taking, "and personal stuff like that."

So who's lying about the logs? Liddy? McCord? Baldwin?

Of course they all are lying. Of course the reason that neither Sally Harmony nor anyone else in the world ever saw any such "logs" or "summaries" or "almost verbatim" transcriptions is because they never existed at all. There were no BALDWIN VERSION logs, ever. It is a lie, start to finish. There were no such logs because there were no bugs planted in the Watergate during any "first break-in" on 28 May 1972. That's because there was no "first break-in" at all. It is a lie told by the same liars lying about the logs.

THEN WHAT DID SALLY HARMONY SEE?

To finally learn the truth about what Sally Harmony saw, we must venture once more into the labyrinthine mind of G. Gordon Liddy himself. Only Liddy can tell it; it is, after all, his tale.

Liddy claims that it happened this way, beginning on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, when he says he met with the CIA's James McCord and Alfred Baldwin in the dark and secret "observation post" - Room 723 of the Howard Johnson's across from the Watergate - where, according to Liddy's fabulous fiction, Alfred Baldwin was busy making the original logs (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

"McCord gave me some typed logs of the interceptions to date.

...When I got home I looked over the logs. [Alfred Baldwin]

was no typist. The logs revealed that the interception was

from a telephone...and that the telephone tapped was being

used by a number of different people, none of who appeared to

be Larry O'Brien. I decided I...had to wait until I had more

product of better quality from McCord. ...I expected the

product to improve. No such luck. The next day's take was the

same. ...On Monday, 5 June, I DICTATED from the typed logs TO

SALLY HARMONY...EDITING AS I WENT ALONG."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"

"WILL"

And now we finally know the answer: Sally Harmony never saw anything at all.

She listened. Sally Harmony rolled a page of GEMSTONE stationery that G. Gordon Liddy had provided into her electric typewriter, she slipped on the earpieces of her dictation machine at her neat little desk, she pressed the pedal, and she listened to the voice of G. Gordon Liddy DICTATING the "logs" she was to type that gave Liddy, McCord, Hunt, and Baldwin the alibi they needed to cover up where they had REALLY been on 26, 27, and 28 May 1972.

The "logs" came from Liddy's lying lips.

There were no actual "logs" from the Watergate.

There were no "bugs" planted in the Watergate.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." Even the HARMONY DISTRIBUTED VERSION of these alleged "logs" didn't survive to be seen by a single investigator of Watergate. All copies were destroyed first.

The co-conspirators only "corroborated" each other.

The reason they corroborated each other, lied for each other, went to jail for penney-ante crimes, and defrauded the entire world is because they were providing themselves with alibis for those fateful last days of May 1972 in order to cover up their REAL crimes committed then - crimes far more vicious, far more heinous, far more odious, shocking, and abhorrent than anything ever uncovered in all the endless annals of Watergate.

They were working directly for DCI Richard Helms.

The mission that they really carried out between 25 May 1972 and 29 May 1972 had been being planned for years and had been set in motion a year earlier by Daniel Ellsberg, who had been guaranteed that he would never be convicted on the "Pentagon Papers" before those strategically worthless "secret" papers ever saw ink.

That's what opened the door for Hunt and Liddy to be slid over into the White House in July 1971. They had to be well established as being connected to the White House to carry out their ACTUAL assignments during the last week of May 1972. There was an important reason for them to have White House credentials. Part of that reason lies at the 89th Airlift Wing.

Hunt and Liddy also used the exact same team of CIA-trained Cuban liars on the phony "break-in" of the office Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis Fielding in September 1971 as they used for the phony Watergate "first break-in." The Fielding op also was an alibi for Liddy and Hunt while they were doing other dirty work for Helms and the CIA in preparation for what was to come in 1972. It also gave them an "excuse" for traveling to New York City on 4 September 1971, where they registered at the Pierre Hotel - just a brisk walk from the Times Square lab of CIA's Cleve Backster.

Hunt was "the principal" for all of it - the principal hand-puppet of DCI Richard Helms.

Every DCI since Richard Helms has known exactly what was ACTUALLY done during the last days of May 1972 by Liddy, Hunt, McCord and others, and so has been an accessory after the fact. They all have shared and kept the guilty secret because for over thirty years it has been the Number One filthy "national security" secret that has had to be protected at ALL cost. Here is that roll of eternal shame and their tenures as DCI:

Richard M. Helms: 30 June 1966 - 2 February 1973

James R. Schlesinger: 2 February 1973 - 2 July 1973

William E. Colby: 4 September 1973 - 30 January 1976

George H. W. Bush: 30 January 1976 - 20 January 1977

Stansfield Turner: 9 March 1977 - 20 January 1981

William J. Casey: 28 January 1981 - 29 January 1987

William H. Webster: 26 May 1987 - 31 August 1991

Robert M. Gates: 6 November 1991 - 20 January 1993

R. James Woolsey: 5 February 1993 - 10 January 1995

John M. Deutch: 10 May 1995 - 15 December 1996

George J. Tenet: 11 July 1997 - present

The "Watergate" scandal is still a festering, gangrenous national and international wound that will not heal. It cannot heal, ever, until that wound is reopened and every last septic secret that lies buried in it is dug out and exposed to the disinfectant light of public scrutiny.

Then you will know why on Sunday, 1 October 1972 - exactly two weeks and one day after a federal grand jury indicted Liddy, Hunt, McCord and their pack of CIA-trained Cuban liars - CIA Office of Technical Service entered into the classified Contract 8473 with Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Russell Targ. And it was all because of what Sally Harmony saw.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQBC1SrTZk3yf4K11AQGbCAf/XBDtQCoN8IW/oXcYfQ6CC8KkvSTtuyCY

O4Afckgntz3yfV1uzt31tVU9BSviied08va3RmsjnUh6HvyccPjNKd/q2tm1k3mu

22Hzz6yxNs7vRGmHt2JYSjnM+hJ6b2PIt+jsiXgGCGHMgIO1AAO1NqGygRxLNSXT

Vj6jKBF/hPJPnizkgwNecz2/+IuM/o7EoaADGwOAKj5dAXcOOAYNQ1LLAbjyDHco

g72spybJJ90VjA4NcDTZfmoNLJXsorJ7edzIfN1DyZ1b99uDnO2olU3ma7x37gNY

hVUU8PA2sMOnONUPu1q77KpZhwHdobb3MNCJm0Ac7VkQu1RmDJ/dpQ==

=IgvA

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-=-

This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Hi Ashton,

Are you the author of the Usenet posts - or did you use these as the basis of your investigations - or were the broadly similar works arrived at independently? (guess where my money's going?)

The one thing that bothers me about the whole scenario as outlined - why was it necessary for the showtrials, the removal of a President, the elaborate scheming and subterfuge all in the name of contract 8473??

I haven't been able to ascertain why this contract couldn't have been entered into without the fanfare of Watergate and whilst obviously an important development it, to my mind at least, seems to be undeserving of the vast charade used to mask it's inception. It is these last points which have caused me most consternation when trying to reconcile the events you've described so comprehensively.

I hope you can help

Gary

[John Simkin]

Now John Simkin has introduced yet a new "Deep Throat" in the anonymous person of an "e-mailer who was close to Nixon" who apparently has come along, not unlike the pop-up (but mum) Mark Felt, to confirm that "The Official Story" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Since all these "Deep Throats" are springing up like the spawn of dragon's teeth to sing another aria of "The Official Story," I thought it only fitting to record here, in date sequence below, the 2004 revelations of "The Real Deep Throat"—who sings a different tune altogether.

My source has never claimed he was the original Deep Throat. My own views on the identity of Deep Throat can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4001

[Guest David Guyatt]

I have remarked elsewhere on this site that I have, for some time, considered it more than interesting that Watergate conspirator, Howard Hunt (using the pen name David St. John), wrote three espionage thrillers with a strong Satanic/occult theme. The Coven and Diabolus for example, were published in 1971 and therefore were contemporary with the Watergate/Nixon period.

This has always left a question mark in my mind. The foregoing alleged connection to RV and RI provides an intriguing glimpse of what may have been an underlying motive for these books. This obviously is no more than speculation on my part, but ordinarily one wouldn’t expect a man of Hunt’s background to be at all familiar with Satanic lore etc.

However, as interesting as it is, I like Gary also cannot see why surreptitious use of RV/RI would have to result in the removal of Nixon…

Personally, I think it is well worth analysing the occasional irruption of highly charged and emotive language (when compared to the balance of the post) in the Usenet postings, which strongly suggests a personal connection to the matters under discussion.

Perhaps you’re right Gary in your suspicion concerning the true identity of the Usenet poster?

David

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Is it imitation being the sincerest form of flattery or art reflecting the artist or great minds thinking alike.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."

Fiction does not produce evidence

Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

Edited October 16, 2007 by Gary Loughran

[Ashton Gray]

Hi Ashton,

Are you the author of the Usenet posts - or did you use these as the basis of your investigations - or were the broadly similar works arrived at independently? (guess where my money's going?)

If you want to speculate about my being every pseudonymous character up to and possibly including the Lone Ranger and Spiderman, you'll have to get in line. Maybe you came in too late for the local Kangaroo Court to try me and convict me of being the author of the original Wikipedia article on the alleged "First Break-In" that was systematically sabotaged until it was back to "The Official Story."

Meanwhile, "The Real Deep Throat" (hereinafter TRDT) and I have considerably divergent opinions about who the Chief Black Hat and Bottle-Whizzer in this drama is. TRDT seems to have it bad for Liddy, and it seems to be personal. E. Howard Hunt is given a bit part in the TRDT posts, whereas there is no question in my mind that Hunt was the primary agent in the field in charge of all things Watergate. Personally, I believe Liddy had been saddled and braced by CIA and put under the charge of Hunt primarily because of Liddy's self-admitted willingness—even eagerness—to do murder.

TRDT also goes on in several places about Liddy being a hack fiction writer, when clearly Hunt is the credentialed hack fiction writer (adjectives chosen with malice aforethought). Whereas Liddy is the one who dictated the so-called logs/summaries/verbatim transcripts (like, what-ever) that Sally Harmony typed up, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the script for what Liddy dictated did not originate with Liddy, and almost certainly was written by Hunt in conjunction with CIA and their think-tank fantasy weavers.

The one thing that bothers me about the whole scenario as outlined - why was it necessary for the showtrials, the removal of a President, the elaborate scheming and subterfuge all in the name of contract 8473??

Well, I certainly don't have all the answers and don't pretend to. That said, there also is no question in my mind about the extreme scope of intelligence agency pursuit of mind control of every possible description during that period in history, and to minimize its importance—whether one agrees that it should have been that important or not—is something I consider a grand mistake.

I also believe that what took place during Watergate is convolutedly connected to the JFK assassination in terms of personnel—including Nixon. I believe that there were many forces and undercurrents at play, including "who had what dirt on whom" in that regard.

I also believe that Nixon was far too materialistic ever to get behind any "paranormal hocus pocus" [not a Nixon quote; just my attempt at a "Nixonization"] as any serious military intelligence pursuit, and that he represented a major impediment to CIA plans. This letter to Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger on Friday, 19 May 1972, the day before Nixon left for his trip to the USSR, is revealing:

"The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat.

"We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented."

—Richard Nixon

excerpted from a 19 May 1972 letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig.

Perhaps I should mention that exactly one week later, while Nixon was abroad, the infamous Ameritas dinner was held at the Watergate, launching the party-hearty weekend of the purported "first break-in."

I haven't been able to ascertain why this contract couldn't have been entered into without the fanfare of Watergate and whilst obviously an important development it, to my mind at least, seems to be undeserving of the vast charade used to mask it's inception. It is these last points which have caused me most consternation when trying to reconcile the events you've described so comprehensively.

Well, the alternative is this: take it as a matter of faith that the cataclysmic events of Watergate and the pervasive involvement of CIA-connected personnel in those events constituted merely an unfortunate coincidence to the CIA's simultaneous tooling up of their blackest and most secret covert program, whose pro forma beginning with contract 8473 was just two weeks after indictments had been handed down on the Watergate burglars on Friday, 15 September 1972.

And there are card-carrying members of the Church of Coincidenceology right here in this forum who will pound the pulpit and preach that very sermon.

Ashton

Edited October 16, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Now John Simkin has introduced yet a new "Deep Throat" in the anonymous person of an "e-mailer who was close to Nixon" who apparently has come along, not unlike the pop-up (but mum) Mark Felt, to confirm that "The Official Story" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Since all these "Deep Throats" are springing up like the spawn of dragon's teeth to sing another aria of "The Official Story," I thought it only fitting to record here, in date sequence below, the 2004 revelations of "The Real Deep Throat"—who sings a different tune altogether.

My source has never claimed he was the original Deep Throat.

I never said, and certainly never meant to imply, that your anonymous source had said he/she/it was the "original" Deep Throat.

It would be impossible for me to imply any such thing, since I've made it clear that my view is that there never was an "original" Deep Throat at all, any more than there ever was a "first break-in."

I was using the generic "Deep Throat." You know, the way Southerners use "Coke" for soda pop of every description.

My own views on the identity of Deep Throat can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4001

An excellent thread pregnant with insightful analysis.

Ashton

Edited October 16, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

Is it imitation being the sincerest form of flattery or art reflecting the artist or great minds thinking alike.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."

Fiction does not produce evidence

Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

When a friend of mine who frequents some usenet groups started sending me the posts of TRDT I admit that I was was struck and very favorably impressed by "Fictions don't have 'correct answers'" and "Fiction does not produce evidence."

My own "Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail," though, is far more pithy and trenchant.

Ashton

[Guest David Guyatt]

Is it imitation being the sincerest form of flattery or art reflecting the artist or great minds thinking alike.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."

Fiction does not produce evidence

Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

Gary, I would argue that sometimes fiction is dripping with factual content, albeit eclipsed from general view.

I also noted Ashton's response to your question about the identity of the Usenet poster:

Quote

If you want to speculate about my being every pseudonymous character up to and possibly including the Lone Ranger and Spiderman, you'll have to get in line.

Unquote

An evasive reply if ever there was one. It's the sort of question that, if incorrect, is easy-peasy to deny outright -- which begs the question why Ashton declined that option.

Mysteries eh. Don't you love 'em.

David