Jump to content
The Education Forum
John Simkin

Alfred C. Baldwin

Recommended Posts

These bufoons make the Keystone Cops look like Shakespearian tragedy. The only wonder is how they possibly have been able to keep everybody in a state of mass hypnosis for 30 years believing any of this crap the way they told it.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, you're so high on your own supply you're positively giddy. You need to take a step back and re-think this whole thing. You're great at insulting people and imagining wide-spread conspiracies but not so good at history. The history of the Warren Commisssion shows that Ford was Hoover's man, and that his loyalties were with the FBI. And yet you seem to believe the big bad evil CIA was backing him... WHO in the CIA backed Ford? Helms? Please cite any evidence you have that Helms and Ford were close in any way. Colby? Colby was a minor figure in the CIA who rose to power only upon Helms' departure. Who are these evil conspirators pulling the strings on Ford, Hunt, McCord, Liddy, Baldwin, the members of the Watergate committee, etc. Please name names. Otherwise your contentions have no more relevance than saying the "boogeyman."

You point out inconsistencies in people's memories and testimony and fall over laughing. Your contention that the Watergate break-in, which led ultimately to the most wrenching examinations the intelligence agencies of this country have ever received, and the greatest reduction in power the CIA ever received, was a CIA op is far more ludicrous. Only I don't find it funny. Your purported motive for this undertaking--to put Ford in the presidency--is positively baffling. As pointed out earlier, Ford TOLD large media barons in passing that the CIA had been involved in assassinations, and then tried to take it off the record. This gaffe led to the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, the Pike Committe, and ultimately the HSCA, which determined that Ford's beloved Warren Commission was not all that. Ford himself was called to testify for the HSCA and subjected to grilling about his role in the WC and his behind-the-scenes contacts with Hoover. Was Ford's gaffe simply the verbal equivalent of his falling down a flight of steps? Did the CIA put their money on the wrong horse? Or hmmm. MAYBE ASHTON, to use your convoluted logic, Ford was a double-agent!!! Yeah, that's it! He snowed the CIA into putting him in power, and then immediately set about destroying them!! Yeah, and then they tried to kill him using Manson followers, who were really sheep-dipped members of the Church of Scientology...

You obviously think you're onto something. You might be. It's reasonable to think some lies were told by the conspirators in order to cover up other crimes...after all, the death of Hoover and the shooting of Wallace were incredibly convenient for the NIXON camp. Your inability or refusal to believe that whatever these men were up to, it was most logically for the benefit of Nixon, and NOT Ford, reveals a tremendous blind spot, in my opinion. There is no evidence that Ford was particularly power hungry, or that his presidency was advantageous to the intelligence communities in any way. If you read Haldeman's The Ends of Power you'll get an inside look into the world of Richard Nixon, and see that the CIA dood it scenario was pushed by Colson, who couldn't quite accept that his super-spook buddy Hunt was simply a screw-up. Nixon was no one's victim but his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

"Are you a Nixon worshipper, Mr. Gray?

Pat

___________________________

Pat,

Ouch. That doesn't seem to be your style. It's the kind of thing we would expect from the 'usual suspects' whose writings, if you'll pardon the expression, I suspect have made you cringe as much as I. It's the kind of simplistic, partisan approach that the perps have relied upon since, in this instance, the Summer of '72 and probably for centuries beforehand.

But we got the 'Net and things like The Forum now. And we've got the very real possibility - and apparent plausibility, dammit - that two of the biggest stories of our time (the Ellsberg chronicles and Watergate) - were massive hoaxes; or even BIGGER hoaxes than we had thought.

For example, much too much has been made of the recording of the "smoking gun" conversation between Haldeman and Nixon and much has been speculated about the infamous gap on another section of the tapes. But our guy A.J. Weberman quotes from another part of the Nixon/Haldeman conversation about Mr. Hunt, a segment that has been ignored. It's when Nixon frets about Hunt's impending testimony and says: "We don't care what he says about Watergate (my emphasis)..." Geez, Pat, read that again and think about it. Do you really need any other leads? Is that not the horse we all should get on and ride to see where the hell it takes us? Doesn't that one freaking quote give us some idea of why all of these machinations and cover and subterfuge took place.

Ah, but Woodstein and Rather didn't guide us in that direction so we were left to wander until we found that oasis where we got to witness the flogging of the Anti-Christ, Richard Milhous Nixon, and that was all that mattered to us...all that really still matters to a lot of us here, that's for sure.

Point is, Hougan states in "Secret Agenda..." that, because the press and the partisan Congress basically were so hot to nail the Tricky One (yeah, I was, too; so, probably was Ashton...In fact, I believe he so stated) it created such a manipulative atmosphere that we all got fooled again.

I'm second-guessing, of course, but it must have been a piece of cake. Sam Spade says to Brigid toward the end of 'The Maltese Falcon" when he confronts her about his suspicion that she had killed his partner, Miles: "But he'd have gone up there with you, angel. He was just dumb enough for that! He would have looked you up and down and licked his lips and gone, grinning from ear to ear. And then you could have stood as close to him as you liked in the dark and put a hole through him..."

I'll give you another one, since I'm in the mood and I'm buying. How about the great Jose Ferrer in another Bogart flick, "The Caine Mutiny"? He mocks the Caine crew about getting Captain Queeg convicted when he says "It was like shooting fish in a barrel." Yeah, we're suckers. A lot of it is laziness but most, by far, is the partisan b.s. that helps to keep our denial humming, eh? Useful idiots indeed we are. We mean well, though.

Now we find, thanks to Mr. Gray, that the Hougan and Gettlin/Colodny works peeled only a few layers. Sorry to seem dismissive of these great works by truly great investigative journalists, but I'm trying to cut to the chase. Once we got to where those guys took us, I believe some of the smugger among us lit up cigars, poured some brandy and collectively thought "I told you so." I know I did. Ashton has blown our cover and Godspeed to him.

Yeah, AG, fiction has no paper trail.

Veritas tu liberabit.

Regards, JG

Edited by John Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Are you a Nixon worshipper, Mr. Gray?

Pat

___________________________

Pat,

Ouch. That doesn't seem to be your style. It's the kind of thing we would expect from the 'usual suspects' whose writings, if you'll pardon the expression, I suspect have made you cringe as much as I. It's the kind of simplistic, partisan approach that the perps have relied upon since, in this instance, the Summer of '72 and probably for centuries beforehand.

But we got the 'Net and things like The Forum now. And we've got the very real possibility - and apparent plausibility, dammit - that two of the biggest stories of our time (the Ellsberg chronicles and Watergate) - were massive hoaxes; or even BIGGER hoaxes than we had thought.

For example, much too much has been made of the recording of the "smoking gun" conversation between Haldeman and Nixon and much has been speculated about the infamous gap on another section of the tapes. But our guy A.J. Weberman quotes from another part of the Nixon/Haldeman conversation about Mr. Hunt, a segment that has been ignored. It's when Nixon frets about Hunt's impending testimony and says: "We don't care what he says about Watergate (my emphasis)..." Geez, Pat, read that again and think about it. Do you really need any other leads? Is that not the horse we all should get on and ride to see where the hell it takes us? Doesn't that one freaking quote give us some idea of why all of these machinations and cover and subterfuge took place.

John, I was trying to get Mr. Gray to explain his attitudes towards Nixon. His dismissal of Nixon as largely irrelevant to Watergate is mind-boggling. Nixon is Watergate. Watergate is Nixon. The other stuff involving Hunt as discussed by Haldeman and Nixon was, officially, I believe, a reference to the forged CIA cables. The destruction of these cables, along with other items of evidence, led to the downfall of FBI director L. Pat Gray (any relation?). As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon. If word of these cables had reached the public before November 1972, Nixon may very well have lost to McGovern. This was the President of the United States ORDERING A FALSE PAPER TRAIL be created implicating his predecessor and one-time rival, a man he believed cheated him of the Presidency, in a MURDER, a murder which was in fact chiefly supported, and possibly orchestrated, by Nixon's former running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge!. The articles of impeachment were written for just this sort of thing. Talk of abuse of power! And yet Hunt told no one about this before the election! In fact, this information was only revealed after John Dean spilled the beans to save his own hiney. If Hunt was trying to bring down Nixon, why would he use the Watergate break-in, which prior to Nixon's involvement in the cover-up, was only a smoking BB gun, when Hunt had, in his own safe, A SMOKING CANNON?

Any theory holding that Nixon was somehow an innocent victim of Gerry Ford's and the CIA's plotting, is absolute bunkum, and deserves to be exposed as such, not applauded. This Forum had two men involved in the Watergate story as members. These men were willing to answer questions about their role. Now Mr. Gray has come here, found a few flaws in their statements, and boldly accused them of being deliberate liars and participants in the biggest hoax ever perpetuated (outside of that one about the souls of long-dead aliens giving us head-aches). This is most unfortunate. Hopefully, he will either go away or come back with something more substantive than that Mr. Baldwin mistakenly called the "Democratic Party Headquarters" "McGovern Headquarters", and was quickly corrected by another knowing participant in this GRAND conspiracy to undermine Nixon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ford's definitely had a role to play, but that role is far more comprehensible in terms of "the Washington Establishment" than a "CIA-rules-the-world" scenario...

HI Daniel,

This is a drive-by posting. Sorry, but I'm really pressed for time and I wanted to address this one point. It has nothing to do with a "CIA-rules-the-world" scenario; it has everything to do with the Cold War belief by CIA at the time that the USSR was far ahead of the US in developing parapsychology and mental technologies for military intelligence purposes. Helms had been in the grip of this for at least two decades. It's a major factor of the zeitgeist for all of Watergate.

Throughout everything to do with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, the CIA, under Helms and Gottlieb, had a massive parallel and uber-secret program being developed, about which not a single thing was really known until as recently as 1995, and pieces are still being put together.

But one reverberating fact that can't be ignored is that that program went formally, and very, very secretly, into high gear on Sunday, 1 October 1972—two weeks almost to the day after the Watergate indictments were handed down on 15 September 1972—with a secret contract granted by the CIA's Office of Technical Services to Hal Puthoff.

There is so much to this that has remained entirely out of view for 30 years that anyone thinking they can solve or understand Watergate without factoring this black CIA operation and all it's backstory into account is thinking they can understand an elephant by smelling a peanut.

The timeline I've referred to repeatedly covers a great deal of what is known about it (which, as the timeline documents, is still very little indeed), and how it dovetails with the Pentagon Papers and Watergate CIA ops. And it's my position that Ford, and not Nixon, was in the loop on this very secret CIA program, and that Ford getting in office was crucial to what came later, including the timely insertion of Bush Sr. into the DCI slot.

That said in brief response here, I don't feel that this Baldwin thread is remotely the correct venue for further discussion on this. I started a topic called "There was no 'first break-in' at the Watergate" in this forum, and it would be an appropriate thread to discuss more of the backstory in if you want to post something there. Or maybe I'll start a new topic even more on point to what the CIA's agenda was, and how Watergate was vital to it.

Hope that helps. Gotta' run.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon.

What cables? Where are some of these cables? I want to see them. Post some, and then I'll address them. Are you going to put these alleged cables into evidence or not? I don't see any cables. Do you? If not, your entire bloviating sermon assumes "cables" not in evidence. Some people call this "hallucination."

So are you busy propagating more of the CIA-generated fiction—and in a thread where it's completely off-topic to boot?

I thought so.

See my sig.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon.

What cables? Where are some of these cables? I want to see them. Post some, and then I'll address them. Are you going to put these alleged cables into evidence or not? I don't see any cables. Do you? If not, your entire bloviating sermon assumes "cables" not in evidence. Some people call this "hallucination."

So are you busy propagating more of the CIA-generated fiction—and in a thread where it's completely off-topic to boot?

I thought so.

See my sig.

Ashton Gray

The Director of the FBI lost his job after admitting he destroyed these cables. John Dean saw these cables. I believe Ehrlichman saw these cables. Hunt admitted creating these cables. I believe Nixon even admitted to having Hunt "correct some gaps" in the historical record or some such thing. If you really believe these cables did not exist, and were a CIA myth designed to damage Nixon, and will curtail your outlandish diatribes once I post all the evidence suggesting that these cables existed, I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time. So... are you really willing to rest the entire credibility of your scenario on the existence of these cables?

P.S. Why would the CIA, which most certainly covers their butt on occasion by creating fake cables, generate a fiction designed for public consumption that includes a long-time CIA agent creating fake cables? Wouldn't they have much rather kept the public in the dark on this CIA "method"?

P.P.S. Gotta go now. My black helicopter is waiting outside.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time.

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there.

If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice.

So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon.

I'll be there.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]), why is it necessary to bring up speculations...... MK/ULTRA mind control arguments? Just because people believe Sirhan when he says he has no recollections of what he'd just done, and says he had no accomplices and is not part of a conspiracy? Are we obligated to believe Sirhan

No Daniel, we are not obligated to BELIEVE Sirhan. What we are obligated to do however, is examine the evidence. This cannot be done without also a thorough examination of what MK?ULTRA was up to. Capable of.

Have you seen RFK's autopsy? Or have any knowledge of it? The kill shot came from directly BEHIND RFK's ear. NO where near SIrhan. Sirhan was several feet in FRONT of the Senator. (Is there a a pattern here?

The inverse of the problem in JFK case).

I have long maintained that because we have a clean autopsy in this case, and the Dr who did it (still alive) and never veered from his findings, and Sirhan is still alive....that this case could BE SOLVED.

Atty Teeter was doing an excellent job as SIrhan's atty until his tragic death last summer.

(Are you aware that all his files on this case were stolen??? This was posted here on the forum by Bill Kelley).

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie

"Are you a Nixon worshipper, Mr. Gray?

Pat

___________________________

Pat,

Ouch. That doesn't seem to be your style. It's the kind of thing we would expect from the 'usual suspects' whose writings, if you'll pardon the expression, I suspect have made you cringe as much as I. It's the kind of simplistic, partisan approach that the perps have relied upon since, in this instance, the Summer of '72 and probably for centuries beforehand.

But we got the 'Net and things like The Forum now. And we've got the very real possibility - and apparent plausibility, dammit - that two of the biggest stories of our time (the Ellsberg chronicles and Watergate) - were massive hoaxes; or even BIGGER hoaxes than we had thought.

For example, much too much has been made of the recording of the "smoking gun" conversation between Haldeman and Nixon and much has been speculated about the infamous gap on another section of the tapes. But our guy A.J. Weberman quotes from another part of the Nixon/Haldeman conversation about Mr. Hunt, a segment that has been ignored. It's when Nixon frets about Hunt's impending testimony and says: "We don't care what he says about Watergate (my emphasis)..." Geez, Pat, read that again and think about it. Do you really need any other leads? Is that not the horse we all should get on and ride to see where the hell it takes us? Doesn't that one freaking quote give us some idea of why all of these machinations and cover and subterfuge took place.

John, I was trying to get Mr. Gray to explain his attitudes towards Nixon. His dismissal of Nixon as largely irrelevant to Watergate is mind-boggling. Nixon is Watergate. Watergate is Nixon. The other stuff involving Hunt as discussed by Haldeman and Nixon was, officially, I believe, a reference to the forged CIA cables. The destruction of these cables, along with other items of evidence, led to the downfall of FBI director L. Pat Gray (any relation?). As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon. If word of these cables had reached the public before November 1972, Nixon may very well have lost to McGovern. This was the President of the United States ORDERING A FALSE PAPER TRAIL be created implicating his predecessor and one-time rival, a man he believed cheated him of the Presidency, in a MURDER, a murder which was in fact chiefly supported, and possibly orchestrated, by Nixon's former running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge!. The articles of impeachment were written for just this sort of thing. Talk of abuse of power! And yet Hunt told no one about this before the election! In fact, this information was only revealed after John Dean spilled the beans to save his own hiney. If Hunt was trying to bring down Nixon, why would he use the Watergate break-in, which prior to Nixon's involvement in the cover-up, was only a smoking BB gun, when Hunt had, in his own safe, A SMOKING CANNON?

Any theory holding that Nixon was somehow an innocent victim of Gerry Ford's and the CIA's plotting, is absolute bunkum, and deserves to be exposed as such, not applauded. This Forum had two men involved in the Watergate story as members. These men were willing to answer questions about their role. Now Mr. Gray has come here, found a few flaws in their statements, and boldly accused them of being deliberate liars and participants in the biggest hoax ever perpetuated (outside of that one about the souls of long-dead aliens giving us head-aches). This is most unfortunate. Hopefully, he will either go away or come back with something more substantive than that Mr. Baldwin mistakenly called the "Democratic Party Headquarters" "McGovern Headquarters", and was quickly corrected by another knowing participant in this GRAND conspiracy to undermine Nixon.

'

______________________________________

I hear that, Pat, and I enjoy your stuff, believe me, and read it always. Thanks for being a gentleman and hope you enjoyed the Bogart soliloquy (written by John Huston, by the way). I do believe that we could

very well have a sea change in this thing. I've mentioned before that, to me, Watergate could be the Rosetta Stone for JFK and even other significant things in history that this damned, unelected, shadow and shadowy government has perpetrated.

To me, the Ruby slaying of Oswald was just about all I needed to know that this thing (lone nut) was a sham. I feel the same way about the Nixon quote on Hunt. Simplistic? Not really. There's lots to go to from there. I've spent most of my life doing investigative work and, if I may brag, I ain't shabby.

But that said, I read everything I can here and I recognize the honest seekers of truth versus the chatline bullpeople who wallow in their ingnorance and, frankly, don't belong. Snob? Sue me.

JG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time.

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there.

If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice.

So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon.

I'll be there.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

If you have it the material on the cables at your disposal, go ahead and start the thread and I'll see you there.

As far as you reporting me to the authorities, give me a break. You come to this Forum, start insulting its members--yes, that's right, Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin are members and not just visitors propped up here for your abuse--and even do a victory dance after insulting Mr. Baldwin off a thread bearing his name. And then you CRY like a child when I won't let you control the thread. Earth to Mr. Gray, this Forum was not created for your sole benefit. You decided to confront Mr. Baldwin on some possible holes in the record, and have accused him and others of being part of an ongiing conspiracy to hide the fact that the Watergate break-in was a CIA coup designed to put Gerald Ford in power. Never mind that this was many months before Ford was even in a position to reap the benefits of this coup. Never mind that Ford was not a friend of the CIA, but a friend of their political rival, the FBI, and that Ford's regime oversaw the most exhaustive investigation of the intelligence agencies in our history, spurred on in part by his own big mouth. While there is almost certainly more to the Watergate story than in the public record, your theory, frankly, appears a bit looney. Those coming to this Forum and wishing to read about Mr. Baldwin should not be subjected to reading your diatribes and ramblings without seeing that at least one member of this Forum found your distortions a bit looney, IMO. Sorry to rain on your hostility parade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Baldwin, we meet again.

Here is my third and final installment of a three-part series in response to your last answers to me of some questions I had asked you in good faith. You made your record. Now I'm making mine. Any questions that seem to be posed herein are rhetorical, because I think the record speaks for itself. Loudly. And as I've made no bones about, I think the record absolutely shouts that you and your co-conspirators, in knowing collusion with CIA and their symbiotes, put a massive hoax over on the entire world that has mangled and destroyed too many lives and careers even to count, and I believe that the living participants continue the hoax to this very minute for their own entirely selfish, amoral self-protection.

...

I'm done, Mr. Baldwin. You made your record. I've made mine. I'm done with you, and with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax.

I recall vividly being a very young man agog at the flashing, swirling, colorful lights, the noise, the barkers (no pun intended, but fitting), the smells, the sawdust, and the electrifying energies and cross-currents of the State Fair midway. I remember well the sense of giddy gullibility (despite what I'd been told repeatedly) with which I went from canvas booth to canvas booth, listening to the friendly, buddy-buddy come-ons, looking at cheap, tawdry prizes that I'd never actually buy under any circumstances, but seeing the quarter entry fee for taking a shot at "games" for me to play, and thinking, "Hell, I can do this."

I also remember all too vividly the feeling of walking away empty-handed, with considerably lighter pockets, duped, conned, snookered by smooth-talking swindlers whose up-front good-ol'-boy affability was a tissue-thin veneer to hide the simple truth that they didn't give a royal damn about my survival or well-being: they only wanted to take as much as they could from me by any means, then move on to the next mark.

There's no feeling quite like being made a fool. But there's no shame in it, either; we've all been duped in our lives.

To realize that the Watergate "first break-in" was nothing but a cheap, showy con job on all of us--entirely funded by our own quarters--is similar in a lot of ways, even if exponentially greater. And just like the rubes on the midway, we were all mesmerized by the flashing lights, the echoing gavels, and the shills at the Washington Post feeding us the CIA lies, and so we surrendered our trust and our quarters.

There is one crucial difference, though:

We all know on some level when we go to the midway that we're fair game for a con. It's part of the game.

Not so with Watergate. The very people we entrusted and paid to protect us from just such criminal deception are the very people who ran the con.

You were one of them, Mr. Baldwin. You knowingly, willfully made use of your FBI background to earn certain trusts, and you knowingly, willfully betrayed that trust in ways that, in my opinion, have no equal in the history of mankind.

And that is, and will be, your legacy.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, should you try and fool some into thinking your behavior here has been admirable and respectable, I highlight these passages from a previous post. I'm still trying to figure out whose lives and careers were ruined by Watergate, beyond the men you claim were conspirators... JUST WHO IS IT who was so badly harmed by Mr. Baldwin? And WHY, pray tell, would the CIA, the most public of secret agencies, concoct a scenario ensuring that the public's trust in its institutions, INCLUDING THE CIA, would be irreversibly damaged? It simply makes no sense. If this conspiracy was as evil as you claim, and as insidious as you claim, wouldn't the conspirators have better served their purported higher power, the CIA, by simply killing Nixon and making it look like an accident?

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie
I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time.

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there.

If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice.

So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon.

I'll be there.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

________________________________________________

AG,

Doug Caddy just posted this today:

"Among the tell-tale signs of these infiltrators, saboteurs and fifth-columnists are unbridled, unwarranted, unprovoked and vicious attacks on other forum members and the postings of so-called “information” that is essentially mis-information or trivia designed to affect adversely the Forum’s credibility."

Oddly, it's under the JFK assassination topic with a thread he branded "Infiltrators, Saboteurs and Fifth Columnists." It's curious, that. It surely seems to be a hastily arranged, knee-jerk reaction to the Caddy and Baldwin-related postings under Watergate.

When you get that reaction you know, you just know) that you're on to them. So please don't relent.

Yours Truly,

JG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time.

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there.

If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice.

So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon.

I'll be there.

I'm calling you out.

Ashton Gray

If you have it the material on the cables at your disposal, go ahead and start the thread and I'll see you there.

:angry: I thought so. :D

I accept your capitulation and your stipulation that the "cables" are yet another fiction, Mr. Speer.

Never mind that Ford was not a friend of the CIA, but a friend of their political rival, the FBI, and that Ford's regime oversaw the most exhaustive investigation of the intelligence agencies in our history, spurred on in part by his own big mouth.

Utter codswollop.

Learn history before you start trying to teach it, especially to me. The only things that Ford and his cronies at the CIA "exposed" in those "exhausive investigations" were the exact things they wanted to "expose," for which Ford's cronies Helms and Gottlieb and friends already had shredded every scrap of evidence at the very beginning of 1973—immediately after their Watergate hoax, and immediately after CIA had started its top secret remote viewing program, which they never revealed at any relevant time, and which they ran in secret for well over 20 years. And Ford was absolutely key to helping them keep that secret throughout the entire dog-and-pony-show "congressional investigations" you're braying about.

Explain that one in your apologist rants at me. It was the absolute highest priority black operation the CIA had going throughout all of these so-called "exhaustive investigations" that your hero Ford set up (impaneled using all his cronies, including Rockefeller, of whose offices Caddy is an alumnus), and they all made sure that not a single syllable ever saw the light of day about this secret program that the CIA was running at that very moment in back rooms just a few miles away from these flashy "exhaustive investigations."

So all it really amounted to was yet another CIA cover-up, showily put on as "confessions" for which the actual evidence had been destroyed.

There's not a pattern here or anything, is there? This wouldn't be the exact same M.O. as the Watergate "first break-in" hoax, run by the exact same crew, would it, Mr. Speer? I mean, we wouldn't be looking at yet another big production congressional "investigation" where the paper trail has been erased, and where we have to rely entirely on the word of the perjuring perpetrators and a few measly scraps of planted "evidence" to know what they have or have not done, would we?

If not, how did these Ford-puppeted congressional "investigators" (with intelligence oversight powers) miss the biggest black program that the CIA and DIA had going right then, right under their own lying, two-faced noses? How? How is it possible? Apologize that away. But tell your apologies to somebody who's gullible enough to listen.

When you picked me, you picked the wrong boy.

Ashton Gray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='John Gillespie' date='Jun 23 2006, 10:54 PM' post='66311']

[

When you get that reaction you know, you just know) that you're on to them. So please don't relent.

Yours Truly,

JG

Hi John

Great to see you here.

I agree with your posts and I have the feeling

that our new "Columbo" is NOT about to "relent".

In fact I have the feeling he's only warming up

and look forward to more of the same.

If people "can't take the heat....."

Tho, these are two men who went before

COngressional committees, and other questioning by

attorneys...so what's the problem answering some

questions? Ashton is a bit confrontrational, but he is also 100% SINCERE,

and after now 34 years of lies on these matters, I for one am damn glad

someone is finally asking some very relevent questions.

As for Pat Speer: He once posted that he believed what James McCord wrote in

his book "A piece of Tape". Pleeeeease!!!. (There's a bridge in Brooklyn that may still be for sale :angry:

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Pat Speer: He once posted that he believed what James McCord wrote in

his book "A piece of Tape". Pleeeeease!!!. (There's a bridge in Brooklyn that may still be for sale :D

Dawn

Dawn, have you read "A Piece of Tape?" If you had, you'd realize that McCord's four main points are that

1) Richard Nixon abused the powers of his office, and used the intelligence agencies to abuse the powers of his office.

2) The Government prosecutors in the Watergate burglary case co-operated with the Nixon White House in covering up the involvement of the White House in the Watergate break-in.

3) That he was disgusted by this and decided to reveal the cover-up to Judge Sirica in order to help clean up the government and

4) That one of his over-riding concerns was that Nixon would try to blame the CIA for the break-in. These concerns were heightened by a conversation he'd had with Dorothy Hunt.

Which of these points do you disagree with, and why? Why would Hunt, McCord and others agree to spend years in jail, just to remove Nixon from office? Were these men leftists? Were they secret pals of Gerry Ford's, as Mr. Gray would have you believe? If so, why didn't their pal grant them pardons upon leaving office? He gave Nixon a pardon, the man he was out to destroy, but he wouldn't give the men who gave him the presidency a pardon? Even George H. W. Bush had better manners than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×