R. Spencer Oliver

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

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

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

Ashton

__________________________________________

Ash,

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

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

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

Consensus Ad Idem,

JG

[Dawn Meredith]

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

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

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

Ashton

__________________________________________

Ash,

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

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

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

Consensus Ad Idem,

JG

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

(Off to court) .

Dawn

[Ashton Gray]

Ash,

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

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

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

Consensus Ad Idem,

JG

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

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

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

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

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

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Ashton

Edited November 9, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

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

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

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

Ashton

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

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

Edited November 14, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Dawn Meredith]

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

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

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

Ashton

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

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

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA???

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA.

Good grief m'boy!

Dawn

[Pat Speer]

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

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

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA???

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA.

Good grief m'boy!

Dawn

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

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

_____________________________________________________________

Dan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JG

Edited November 14, 2006 by John Gillespie

[Ashton Gray]

I think what some of us have trouble relating to are the Scientology aspects of the argument.

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

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

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

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

Please let us all know what they say.

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

It was a great relief.

I've checked out Keller's "Remote Viewing Timeline" a few times

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

and it's still hard to figure out the attitude towards Scientology.

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

Apparently Scientology was of great interest to the early CIA as part of CIA's investigation and experimentation in mind control.

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

But the overall gist in this area of the Timeline is that CIA was trying to co-opt L. Ron Hubbard's work for CIA's own uses. So Hubbard's death (disappearance?) was an occasion where CIA basically succeeded in a take-over of Scientology?

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

Is Scientology as we know it today some bastardized, CIA-controlled travesty and betrayal of what Hubbard originally intended?

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

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

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

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

The idealization of original great leaders as martyrs is important in both cases...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ashton Gray

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

PS: John's thoughtful post should be answered though, so I will attach it here...

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

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

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

Ashton Gray

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

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm. I see there has been no progress.

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

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

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

Ashton

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Ashton Gray]

You must stay high a lot, "Ash," since you can't tell that "should be answered" means that I am answering John's post, rather than posting John's post

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

As I said, from now on I will go back to staying out of your way (so long as you don't bait me again).

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

And maybe we could all learn a lesson from this.

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

*PLONK*

Ashton

Edited November 16, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Pat Speer]

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

*PLONK*

Ashton

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

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

[Dawn Meredith]

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

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

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA???

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA.

Good grief m'boy!

Dawn

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion tho. So shoot me

Dawn

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

________________________________________________________________________________

____

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

Regards,

JG

[Ashton Gray]

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

________________________________________________________________________________

____

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

Regards,

JG

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

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

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

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

Ashton

Edited December 17, 2006 by Ashton Gray