Ashton Gray

Pat Speer has opined in this manner concerning your relationship with the totally amoral convicted felon, self-confessed forger, perjurer, and CIA founding member (but I repeat myself) E. Howard Hunt: "Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife... . It seemed obvious to me...that Caddy had lied... ." —Pat Speer Is Pat Speer correct in what he says? Ashton Gray

Pat Speer has opined in this manner concerning your relationship with the convicted felon, self-confessed forger, perjurer, and CIA founding member (but I repeat myself) E. Howard Hunt: "Mr. Caddy, in order to keep Hunt's involvement secret, probably lied to a newspaper about a phone call from Barker's wife... . It seemed obvious to me...that Caddy had lied... ." —Pat Speer Is Pat Speer correct in what he says? Ashton Gray

Well, Cliff, he looked fairly dead to me. You might want to get a second opinion. Ashton

A thoughtful and thought-provoking post, Don, regardless of any points we seem to be in agreement on. I wish I had more time to devote to it, but this particularly caught my attention: The covert manipulation of JFK by Bundy starting 20 May 1963 to get the Ambassador to Haiti, Thurston, recalled to Washington, and to get units of the U.S. fleet moved away from key positions, all while DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Joseph Charles were running around in New York and D.C. with CIA and Rockefeller reps is an event simply staggering in scope and implications. As soon as Bundy issued the Executive Order arising from these secret meetings with Kennedy, DeMohrenschildt shot back to Dallas, and in two days was en route to Haiti. Just days later (the day after the Cortez hotel meeting in El Paso confirming the Texas trip for JFK), CIA launched its phony "Red Cross" operation—purportedly aimed at Cuba, naturally—with a rendezvous point near Hogsty reef, which is almost centered between Haiti and Cuba, and near the area where the U.S. fleet ships had been withdrawn. I published a fair portion of timeline related to this in the thread called "Questions for Gary Hemming." I believe it is very solid evidence of collusion between Bundy, CIA, and the DeMohrenschildt/Clemard Joseph Charles operations, which have their own ties not only to the Rockefeller money interests, but to CIA's WUBRINY operation, which now has been linked to Bush the Elder. And regrettably I have to leave this here at the moment. Ashton

Hi, Terry. Nice to see you back! Wellllll— No. It's worse than that. That is a direct steal by Jefferson (and other party or parties unknown, who scritched and scratched on the original draft) from the asthmatic runt John Locke—darling of philosophy departments the world over, and a slavering, drooling lunatic who poisoned the very groundwater of philosophical thought with just such barking mad concepts as "all men are created equal." It is one of the most hideously insane statements ever uttered, and why he wasn't thrown onto a goat cart and trundled off to Bedlam the instant it issued forth from him is one of the great unsolved mysteries, and an unspeakable tragedy. Locke, by the way, was an investor in the slave trade in the early days. The pandemic socio/political diseases that spawned in and crawled out of the fetid swamp that served John Locke as a mind are worthy of a book, and in fact, one is in the works. I'm on the road at the moment, and away from my body of research materials on this for a week—which may be just as well, since this is straying far afield from the topic. But I simply couldn't let that infamous lie go by without crediting its infamous source. In one of the curious little serendipities of life, though, part of what I'm on the road doing research on is the Scopes trial. As it happens, Darwin had come straight out of an intense study of Locke when he boarded the Beagle. He came home and promptly paraphrased Locke, and made us all into monkeys. Then threads like this evolve (pun sent by messenger from my muse) wondering why people sometimes act like them. Ashton

There are many other topical threads, containing a great deal of important data not getting sufficient exposure elsewhere, that have received thousands of page impressions, though. These forums are a vital world force, and a vital communication line for truths that elsewhere are heavily suppressed. Although people who write such email can make it seem like they are in the majority, they only make up about 20% of the population at most. The 80% are responsible and interested and decent. In a position like you and Andy are in, it's extremely easy to become overwhelmed with the traffic from and impressions made by the 20%. Keep your eye on the purpose and your hand in support of the 80% who care about the issues raised here. As are we all. Some have yet to realize it. At the same time, there is nothing inherently wrong with pride in one's nation, any more than there is anything wrong with pride in one's family, community, school, or even church. Fanaticism in any of those types of groups, to the denigration or suppression or harm of other such groups, is simply fanaticism, and is ugly wherever it's found. The forums are playing a significant role in doing just that. Don't let the 20% convince you otherwise. Ashton

Then there's another fine reason for you to be leary of CIA: they built their remote viewing program on it, and ran it for over twenty-five years in supreme secrecy—using your tax dollars. Or hadn't you thought of that part? Ashton Gray Mr. Grey, thank you for your very interesting time-line. What was the CIA doing by building their remote viewing program? Was this part of their mind control program & investigation? What function did their remote viewing program have? Was Scientology a front, a manipulated tool? Further elucidation appreciated. Thx. Hi Mr. Scull. I hope you don't mind, but I've created a new topic in the Watergate forum to answer your question to the best of my ability there, so this topic doesn't get further derailed: CIA's Remote Viewing Program and Watergate—The Parallel Universes 1971, 1972, and Beyond. To keep things somewhat straight, I just want to mention that the webbed Remote Viewing Timeline I've linked to and mentioned at times is not mine, nor is the site that it's on. That's a myth that's been insinuated by several members here. I don't know if you've fallen under its spell or not, but I wanted to make that clear. The timeline that I more or less created—based to a substantive degree on that webbed timeline, but also including other information I had access to that is not in that webbed Remote Viewing Timeline—was in an older thread in the Watergate forum, but I've reproduced it in the new thread. So if you'll click here you'll find that I've copied your question there and have done the best I can to answer: CIA's Remote Viewing Program and Watergate—The Parallel Universes 1971, 1972, and Beyond. And please call me Ashton. I'm not part of the "Mr." set here. Ashton

Then there's another fine reason for you to be leary of CIA: they built their remote viewing program on it, and ran it for over twenty-five years in supreme secrecy—using your tax dollars. Or hadn't you thought of that part? The feds giveth, and the feds taketh away. De Oppresso Liber. Dontcha' know. Ashton Gray

But what does Ashton Gray really believe? That religious icons can, indeed, appear in pancakes. (Obligatory dollop of humor. Or, humour, if you prefer.) That the CIA used three top-level Scientology OTs as the core of their long-running remote viewing program is inarguable. It is solidly documented in the Remote Viewing Timeline, which I have linked to in several articles at relevant places. (This is the timeline that MockingBirdpedia censored from their site, and forbade anyone even to link to after they had eradicated it, but it had been webbed at the link in this paragraph.)That the top secret evolution and establishment of CIA's remote viewing program—using these highly-trained Scientology OTs—exactly paralleled the events of the so-called Pentagon Papers and Watergate hoaxes also is inarguable. The Remote Viewing Timeline lays out this bizarre synchronicity in some detail. I explored this further for you, specifically, and in thorough detail, on the first forum page of the topic you started in the Watergate forum called R. Spencer Oliver, after you had said my "proposed motivation" for the actors in Watergate made "no sense at all." I presented thoroughly documented data there in the form of a timeline, some of it with my own commentary (gratuitous humor at no extra charge). After I invested a great deal of time in that response to you in that thread, you never responded at all for over a month, and when you did, you didn't respond to any of the facts at issue that I had posted, saying instead: On 17 December 2006, the same day you posted that, I answered you at considerable length in that thread, and you have not responded. As I said there, the facts speak for themselves, and I have no confusion whatsoever between a timeline and a "theory." I simply don't feel an obligation to post any theories that I might form at any moment on any set of data, particularly when data sets change as new data and relationships are found, and theories—in my use of them and research—have all the value and half-life of toothpicks. So I'm still not sure what you want me to clarify. The facts speak for themselves. Anyone is free to formulate or propose or mull over any theory of their own construct from the facts. It should go without saying that any useful theory will embrace all relevant facts. My point to you in the referenced thread is that I found your dismissal of my work and observations on the Watergate affair extraordinarily disdainful, especially in light of the fact that your own proposed theories and observations so far have omitted even a mention, much less a careful consideration, of the prodigious body of data related to the CIA's top priority at all relevant times: its remote viewing program. In fact, your latest position that I know of is stated above: "it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected." And I'll say again here what I said to you in that thread: No one has made a claim that the events are connected only by virtue of being in the timeline. The events are connected by common CIA personnel, proximate or concommitant dates, and proximate geographical locations in many cases. So the situation is actually the inverse of your syllogism: because the incidents are connected, they are in the timeline. No, John, I'm not making fun of anyone—until they start trying to make a toy of me. I think a few have found that that's not a very profitable course. Meanwhile, I believe—and this is subjective, so may be off the mark—that most people can differentiate between the carefully researched facts I present, my offhanded humorous or sarcastic comments, and my sometimes heated verbal fencing with people who temporarily and mistakenly think condescension might work on me. I would go further and hope that they can differentiate between the facts and any "theories" I might be so bold as to put forward at any time based on those facts, because I consider theories to be ephemeral things that I will discard like a tissue the moment data changes. Conversely, if you'd like to see an example of the kind of ridicule that has been tolerated in this forum directed at me, though, even on the subject you raise, see the first red quote in my sig below. That smarmy sarcastic smear is what Pat Speer—the "gentleman" you endorse—attempted to paint me with. I didn't see you raise an objection to his ridicule of this subject and of me. (I no longer will be wasting a moment of my time on anything he posts.) If you want me further to "clarify"—in any way I'm able—anything about this subject and its relationship to Watergate (which also, apparently, from a little I've found, reaches back to 1963 and even earlier), create an environment where such things as CIA's proven involvement with it can be discussed civilly and respectfully. Ashton

Add sarcasm and a dash of hyperbole to the great dollop of humour, then the above, most eerily, is precisely my perspective on Ashton's posts. My family members also will attest that I over-salt the soup. Ashton

Double post.

Robert, I accept from you, without the slightest rancor or offense, your assessment in the spirit it is given. I'll also state again for the record that I have 52 outstanding questions to Mr. Caddy in the thread Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?, none of which were constructed with any intent to cause umbrage or to offend. They are straight questions going to relevant material facts in testimony and evidence that I laboriously supplied for reference. In the very first post of that thread I said: Since then, nothing but personalities (well, mine, at least) has been made the issue, and the questions remain unanswered. If someone would care to go into that thread, and make constructive suggestions for ways to make specific questions there more palatable to Mr. Caddy, I would be entirely amenable—as long as the questions are not watered down to the point of not getting at the facts at issue at all. I have made every gesture of good faith I know possible to get the relevant questions answered, including proffering them in this very thread to the senior moderator of this forum for him to ask of Caddy, and offering voluntarily to leave the forum permanently, as long as the questions actually get answered for the good of all. I don't know what further steps I can take. Well, there is a fourth possibility that I see, one that several of my questions in the above captioned thread go to (based on evidence that I cite there), and that is that Douglas Caddy never was the attorney of record for the leakiest Plumbers in history at all, which would render null any and all questions of "attorney client privilege"—unless, of course, reflecting to your number 2 above, there is standing privilege between him and CIA. Perhaps, though, he finally will simply say that Hunt lied on the Mrs. Barker call issue. (That hope dimmed when I saw he has replied to your message in his time-honored method of reference to a two-year-old article in the Advocate, the relevance of which, to what you wrote, I cannot fathom. Maybe you will have better luck than I. Godspeed.) Yes, well, this disconnect is precisely why I have been rather dogged in attempting to determine whether he ever actually was retained at all. I cannot get this seminal question answered, or the questions I asked going directly to this pivotal point. Most accept it as a foregone conclusion. I don't. This seems to account for at least part of my unwashable sin. I can't express how refreshing it is to be understood. Some people simply are humorless, at least on some subjects, and no amount of humor seems to cure it. Well, I hope to, and prefer to, because I believe there is much more to explore. My goal on the question of being right or wrong is to be right 51% of the time—and I still manage to disappoint myself as often as not. If each of us chasing these elusive right answers in a hail storm of maliciously supplied wrong answers can only manage to be right on the important points, I still hold out hope that we'll get somewhere. Thank you for your interest, and for your fair-handed dealing with these issues. Ashton

Add sarcasm and a dash of hyperbole to the great dollop of humour, then the above, most eerily, is precisely my perspective on Ashton's posts. If only Ashton could refrain from smearing anyone who dares disagree with him as a "disinformation magpie" and "agenda hornet" (just to cite two examples that he's directed at me), then we could all enjoy his input... Now, Cliff, my bird and insect analogies are always terms of endearment, not smearing. I reserve my scatological analogies for smearing, and you have remained entirely unscathed. I would expect at least a little gratitude. Ashton

*PLONK* Ashton Gray

Since everyone knows that Howard Hunt was a professional xxxx, you don't need to be a genius to figure out the answer to your own question. Professional liars don't lie all the time; that's what makes them professionals at their trade: they mix truth with lies in a very deadly potion. You don't need to be a genius to figure that out. I hope I've helped you here. I don't wish to throw you reeling into an emotional crisis, but however shocking this may be to you, just consider it some tough love: you don't speak for "everyone else." Well, he doesn't with me. And frankly, I've never encountered any other single person in all my years of existence so persistently evasive of valid, pertinent questions going to material relevant fact arising from his own record and testimony. Oh, I know: you've already attempted to discredit every single question I've asked Mr. Caddy and demean it out of existence, only part of which zealous industry by you is memorialized in my sig. But just as you are not the spokesperson for "everyone else," you also are not the Final Arbiter of Valid Questions. Well, there you have the crux of my post: if forum membership automatically exonerates any actor in a controversial socio/political event, and automatically armor plates them from probative questions going to truth or falsity, then what's the point of their being here? So they can be patty-caked only with "questions" they can "answer" with off-handed pointers to a long-existing record that may, itself, be false?I carefully studied the existing questions to and answers from Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin before I asked any questions, and the questions I then asked had not been answered, could not be answered from the existing record, and the majority still have not been answered. Curiously, those unanswered questions go directly to severe conflicts in the record, which both Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin have the means and knowledge to reconcile. They just won't, that's all. Why? Oh, well: only because of the incorrigible and irredeemable personal flaws of the questioner. At least to hear them, and you, tell it. This is the Great Straw Man: asking someone who has unique percipient knowledge relevant questions going to material fact is not calling someone "a xxxx" just because it's clear that there are falsehoods in the record, and questions are being asked about those falsehoods and the source of those falsehoods. In the instant case, all Mr. Caddy had to do is say what you already have claimed as his elected or unelected mouthpiece: "Hunt lied." The question would have been answered. He did not. He would not. And here's another tough love notice to you: you have no standing whatsoever to answer a single question I asked Mr. Caddy. That's why I didn't direct the questions to you. You weren't there. The record in the Watergate forum, though, where I asked Mr. Caddy questions, will demonstrate conclusively to anyone who cares to study it that at all relevant times you continually interfered in the threads, attempted to discredit me, personally, and the questions themselves, and then—even while claiming the questions weren't worth answering—assayed to answer questions for Mr. Caddy that you could not possibly have any first-hand knowledge of the answers to. I have no idea, to this day, why you were so sedulous and indefatigable in your obstructionist tactics to stand between Mr. Caddy and the very pertinent questions I posed to him (still unanswered), but here you are continuing it right here, right now. You seem to have a very close and strong vested interest in making sure that Mr. Caddy is never called on to answer any of those questions, an interest that, to me, seems to go far, far beyond the reasonable interest of a forum member in arriving at truth and relevant facts. Every time the question of the questions to Caddy comes up anywhere, you are there proffering every excuse you can muster for why Mr. Caddy should be exempt from answering pertinent questions—even when his own stated purpose for being here at all is to answer questions. Ashton Gray

Will there be any method of recourse for deletions? I have cause to believe that occasions may arise where just such a line of rational appeal would be in order. For instance, last year much ballyhoo was made, by a few people with a stated agenda to get me removed from the forum, of a logical syllogism I posed based on the inarguable maxim that two contrary statements or facts cannot both be true. Citing evidence arising only in conflicting, mutually exclusive testimony, with no physical evidence that could make a determination of truth or falsity in either case, I said, e.g., to Mr. Caddy: I can see only three possibilities: 1) Hunt lied. 2) You lied. 3) You both lied. Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path. To this moment, that stands as a valid logical syllogism, and there still is no answer to who lied in the instant case. As the record shows, I even invited anyone to posit a fourth or further possibility. No one has. Mr. Caddy then posted one of his strident calls for my forum beheading, willfully misrepresenting what I had written to make it falsely appear that I had claimed that all three of the above possibilities were the case, when I had said no such thing. Given that in these controversial topic forums we inevitably are faced with disinformation, and given that falsehoods intended to deceive are the primary tool of disinformationists, I believe that this is a crucial issue. A lie, after all, is: A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood; something intended or serving to convey a false impression; an inaccurate or false statement; to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive; to express what is false; convey a false impression. If we were not confronted with lies, these forums would not be here at all. If we have no means of probing truth or falsity, then these forums may as well not be here at all. The separation of truth from falsity is the only hope of progress available to anyone investing their time in these pursuits. Even though the attempt to sort truth from falsity is a very valid and good-faith purpose and pursuit, it is one that easily can be mischaracterized as ad hominem, when the only thing actually at issue is truth or falsity of crucial pertinent facts, and an honest attempt to identify which conflicting facts (if any) are true or false, and to identify the source or sources of false information. Those most intent on keeping in place a perfect gooey, inseperable mix of indistinguishable truth and falsity always scream the loudest whenever someone, in good faith, attempts to break down this hopeless black tar into its constituent parts and starts to sort fact from fiction—the screams almost always asserting the loft of holy righteousness from which the questioner is condemned and villified. So I feel that while the moderation of willful, petulant, gratuitous ad hominem and personal attack is extremely worthwhile and beneficial to the purpose of the forums, I sincerely hope that you and the moderators will give due and sober thought to how these central and seminal questions of truth or falsity can be effectively addressed, particularly when inviting to the forum, as members, individuals who have played pivotal roles in infamous social and political events, and upon whose uncorroborated testimony and representations many have relied—perhaps to the peril of all. Ashton Gray

Good. Even I would hate to see you attempt to argue otherwise. Your stipulation is of record. The rest of your post being on the order of a Tarot reading, and off-topic at that, the next section of this thread now will establish: Burkley's inspection of JFK in Trauma Room 1 prior to Carrico's own inspection, Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 when Carrico noted the throat injury and inserted the cuffed endotracheal tube, Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 during discussion by Perry, Carrico, et al. of the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy, and Burkley's presence in Trauma Room 1 during the tracheotomy. I don't know how many other distractions of minutiae and irrelevancies you or others might attempt to set up as a side show, but that is where this thread is going next, establishing beyond reasonable doubt Burkley's clear knowledge of the throat wound. Then, and only then, will this thread move on to the autopsy, and to the back wound missile that was discovered during the autopsy and stolen—willfully removed from evidence with the collusion of Sibert and O'Neill—specifically to create the opportunity for the ludicrous "magic bullet" theory, to create the opportunity for the ludicrous insistence that a bullet that entered JFK's back at the location and angle of evidence possibly could have caused such a throat wound. It could not, and it did not. The back wound was probed. The back wound was shallow. And the bullet that caused it was found and stolen during the autopsy at Bethesda. And Burkley knew it. And that is the purloined projectile. And that is why CE399 is not the back wound bullet. If you would try checking the topic subject anew each time you post, you might learn how to stay on topic. I won't be holding my breath, though. Ashton Gray

One factor that may, or may not, argue for the document's veracity is that Casey died of a malignant brain tumor in May of the following year, 1987. He left as DCI on 29 January 1987—less than two months after the date of this purported document. It is not entirely beyond the reach of consideration that by the date of the document he had been diagnosed and felt the need to make a statement that he felt would vindicate his "higher purpose" <SPIT!> motives should the story of what is described in the document otherwise become known after his death. In such a case, I don't find it entirely unlikely that Nixon would be chosen as a witness on the basis of personal friendship. I, um, don't think the local corner notary would have been a likely choice, given the content. Ashton

Here is a text transcript, with some notes at the beginning about different images sets of the purported document. This has not been proofread by me against the images: ================BEGIN TRANSCRIPT=========== NOTE: one web site associates this document with "Case 99 CV-2709," and one version of the images of the document has "RA-116," "RA-117," and "RA-118" on pages 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Those copies of the document images do not have "TOP SECRET" at the bottom of page 1, or "Richard Nixon, Witness" at the bottom of page 2, but those are found on one set of the documents, so are reproduced in this transcript. [Quoting from the declaration of William Casey:] [printed] The Director of Central Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20505 [stamped] Excluded from automatic downgrading and declassification. Date of declassification indefinite [typed] DECLARATION I, William J. Casey, declare I have found that freedom is a priceless commodity that demands constant vigilance to guarantee its longevity. I was assigned to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in London, England, during World War II. During that time I befriended a young German soldier named Gunther [Russbacher]. I used Gunther and several other anti-Nazi German prisoners of war in OSS operations within Nazi Germany. I knew this violated Geneva Convention. I did not care. The Geneva Convention was but a set of rules governing man's atrocities committed in the name of political ideology. To wage war with rules is to prolong human suffering. Open warfare is the last resort of a civilized nation and must be used sparingly. Wars must be fought savagely, utilizing all tools and tricks at hand. Gunther was a tool. Ignoring the Geneva Convention was the trick. After I became Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) on January 28, 1981, I was approached and briefed by William Colby, former DCI. My history with Bill Colby is known. Colby notified me, off the record, of two operations he was still running in Latin America. Both operations were without the knowledge and consent of the United States Congress, President Ronald Reagan, or even the United States intelligence apparatus. Colby identified the operations as "A-6" (RED MIST) AND "A-7" (PROJECT SANDMAN). A-7 entailed smaller operations. I was told that A-6 identified individuals and the build-up of the communist threat in Latin America. Some intelligence collected in A-6 was used in TASK FORCE-157. I was told that A-7 was "the Phoenix Program" of Latin America. It involved the assassination of the communist infrastructure throughout Latin America. I was told that Colby authorized assets involved in A-6 and A-7 to engage in narcotics trafficking to finance both operations. Colby engaged in similar operations that I know of in Vietnam for the same reason. Colby candidly informed me that he had pre-positioned more than one million pounds of cocaine in Panama between December 1, 1975 and April 1, 1976. This was done with the aid of our gallant ally, General Manuel Noriega. The cocaine was transported into El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Honduras between 1976 and 1981. Colby now sat in front of me, with hat in hand, and requested my help in the delivery of the cocaine to the American market. I was told that Colby was using a mutual friend of ours, Colonel [typed at bottom of page on one set] RA-116 [stamped at bottom of page on another set] TOP SECRET [page break] -2- Albert Vincent Carone, United States Army, Military Intelligence, to field A-6 and A-7. Al Carone is a charismatic patriot that General Joseph W. Stilwell introduced us to in late 1945. Beside the usual qualifications, Al Carone brought to the anti-communist effort a direct connection to his longtime friend, Vito Genovese. Genovese was the head of the gambling and narcotics for the controlling mafia family in New York to which Al Carone was made a member. Carone is a friend of international fugitive Robert Vesco. Carone has several anti-communist intelligence sources that include Maurita Lorenz, a friend of Fidel Castro. Al Carone is the younger brother of Dr. Pasquale Carone. Dr. Carone worked for Central Intelligence on other matters. Colby told me that profits from the pre-positioned cocaine would be laundered through Al Carone, the New York mafia, and Robert Vesco, then redirected to the anticommunist effort through Colby. After discussion with Al Carone, I made the decision to bring the pre-positioned cocaine into Mena airport, Mena, Arkansas. Central Intelligence has used Mena Airport on prior occasions. This time the cocaine is the tool. The trick was to ignore the law and avoid public scrutiny. We were helped in our efforts by William J. Clinton and William F. Weld. By 1984 all pre-positioned cocaine had arrived at Mena airport, and additional cocaine sources were secured. Cocaine was being trans-shipped through Hangars Four and Five at Ilopango Airbase, El Salvador. My point man at Mena was Alder Berriman Seal (Berry Seal). Bill Clinton has proved invaluable so far by containing the local law enforcement investigations into the intelligence activity in Mena. Bill Weld, as Assistant United States Attorney, was placed in charge of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. This was done so that Bill Weld could control investigations into Mena by federal law enforcement agencies. The placement of Weld has proved invaluable. I ordered John Poindexter, Robert McFarlane and Oliver North to go outside normal channels and use available assets, including the mafia, to ensure the arrival of the cocaine into Mena Airport. The arrivals occurred in no small part through the effort of personnel assigned to the National Security Agency (NSA) and Army Security Agency (ASA). The men and women of the NSA and ASA blinded early warning defense satellites and radar grid to enable the aircraft to land undetected at Mena Airport. The NSA and ASA operations were SEA SPRAY and JADE BRIDGE. I have learned that the course of the democratic struggle for Nicaragua and Latin America is beginning to swing in our direction. I attribute this success to A-6 and A-7 which Bill Colby had the insight, precision, and spine to carry out. I take notice of the heroic efforts of Al Carone, Bill Clinton, Bill Weld, John Poindexter, Bud McFarlane, and Ollie North. Without these men, A-6 and A-7 would not have appeared. [typed at bottom of page on one set] RA-117 [typed at bottom of page on another set] Richard Nixon Witness [page break] -3- Freedom is a priceless commodity. The amount of freedom you enjoy is the result of the amount of vigilance you invest. My actions may be recorded as criminal, condemning countless Americans to drug dependency. I don't care. All wars produce casualties. Generally the more violent the war, the shorter the length. My choice was either to stare down a protracted cold war guerilla insurgency in Latin America or use the means available to finance and wage a violent war of short duration for democracy. I stand by my decisions. The tool is cocaine. The trick is to understand that the drug user had the freedom to make a choice. They chose the drug. I chose to use their habit to finance the democracy that all Americans enjoy. To keep those Americans safe from the communist threat knocking on our back door in Latin America. For a change, the drug user will contribute to society. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above facts are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Executed this 9th day of December 1986 in McLean, Virginia. [signature] William J. Casey [typed] William J. Casey [signature] Richard Nixon [typed] Richard Nixon Witness [typed at bottom of page on one set] RA-118 =================END TRANSCRIPT================ Ashton

Images of the three-page (purported) document are on the Wikipedia page about William J. Casey. They are pretty awful copies. A transcript of the declaration is at this page. The story of the declaration (called there a letter) and better images are on this "From the Wilderness" web page. Ashton

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it. Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet.I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum. I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief. Ashton Gray Ashton, I believe the record shows you to have been far more abusive of myself and others than we ever have been of you. Well, of course you do. Why, Pat: I acknowledge right in my sig that you are my betters. Naturally you and your vocal little band of cronies are always on higher ground. John Simkin himself said that you are a gentleman. Now, there cannot be a better endorsement than that. But do feel free to quote my forum messages anywhere you choose in order to support your position. I'm always all for moving on. So as soon as you make a public unqualified recantation of the quotes by you in my sig, I'll remove those quotes from my sig and we'll move on. Till then, I hear the words, but I don't hear the music. There must be static on the internet, then, because by the time they get here to my screen, they are vaingloriously haughty, condescending, challenging, and uniformly reconstructive of a hyperbolic, generalized, and entirely untenable position that you falsely attribute to me without, ever, a direct quote of me. This is your constant, unchanging, repetitive, monotonous, decrepit, threadbare, disingenuous, crutch-borne modus operandi. Of course, you are invariably a well-spoken gentleman throughout, though. Then again, so was Richard Helms. Quote where I made that sweeping generalized statement. Oh: that's right—you can't, because you made it up and falsely attributed it to me, didn't you. (Very gentlemanly done, though. A tip of the hat.) How can you generate so many ways to waste forum time and mine? To what lengths do you go to create these entirely false and pointless "issues" to beat to death? How can you possibly be as informed as you represent yourself to be, and then absolutely destroy the usefulness of forum threads with an apparently infinite supply of just such flapdoodle? How in the world can you buy, or even pretend to buy, such utter twaddle from Humes, even long enough to waste all this forum time on it, when you know damned well—and I know damned well that you know damned well—that Burkley was an Admiral, and Humes was a Commander—which is only five ranks lower than Admiral—and when you also know that Burkley was in the Office of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States? HOW? How do you do it? How do you create on the fly such rhetorical and intellectual traps for the unwary, such virtual treadmills to put people on and keep them running in one place infinitely? How do you find all these microscopically senseless "conflicts" and milk them endlessly to create so much confusion and discord where there is no possible interpretation other than that Humes's claim is risibly false on its face? And yet you trot it out shamelessly to create a big, unmoving, stuck, thick, heavy dichotomy of black/white that will practically behead anyone who comes along and who doesn't know the underlying relevant facts. I am constantly in awe of the time and energy you have to devote apparently to nothing else but creating just such mountainous issues where there cannot be even a mote of an issue. And try as I might, I cannot conceive or postulate any other intention for such activities than willfully and artfully to confuse and deceive others. I wish someone would supply me with some other rationale or explanation for such industrious activities. But I, all by myself, have yet to come up with any. And then you sit on your high horse and talk down to me and attempt to put false words in my mouth and demand that I defend them. Well, I'll tell you what: if that's what it takes to acquire "gentleman" status in this forum, Lord grant me the strength and fortitude to remain a gutter rat. Ashton Gray

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it. Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet. I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum. I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief. Ashton Gray

While you're keeping the blender spinning on HIGH, Special Forces Agent Purvis, tell everybody listening to your spin how Boswell could have had any idea at all where Burkley was—if Burkley had been out of the autopsy room at any time, which I do not stipulate. X-ray vision? Is that what you're trying to get people to buy? That's how I see it: either, Boswell had X-ray vision, or it's yet another example of the gratuitous "details" that liars always seem to throw in to help sell their lie. Meanwhile, Burkley himself says in sworn affidavit that he supervised the autopsy, and Jerrol Custer testified that Burkley was in the autopsy room with a four-star general, both of them issuing orders on the conduct of the autopsy. And Burkley is the person who ordered where the autopsy was to be done. The propensity of evidence entirely supports the fact that Burkley supervised the autopsy, and that testimony to the contrary is perjured testimony in support of a cover-up—which fact of falsehoods and a cover-up is inarguable. And there's a question still on the table for you, Special Forces Instructor Purvis: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.? If so, that's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing. I only speak for me, but from where I sit, your continued dodging of this very pertinent question is starting to look a little ugly. Ashton Gray

Yes, Special Forces Instructor Purvis, it's as predictable as gravity now that if evidence is posted that something was black, you will immediately post evidence (always at your fingertips) that it was white. This principle of dichotomies is a primary psy-op technique of the exact kind of CIA-originated coercive persuasion training you received to become a Special Forces officer and instructor, isn't it? And its actual intention is a method of social engineering to keep people in a constant state of confusion, because in such psy-ops training, you're taught that "what applies to the microcosm applies to the macrocosm; what works on the individual will work on populations." Isn't that correct? And these exact kinds of black/white dichotomies of "evidence" have been seeded all through the Kennedy assassination "evidence" in testimony for exactly these purposes of wide-scale confusion, haven't they? I ask these points specifically regarding this topic at issue, because you keep evading this question: isn't it true that gaining officer and instructor status in the Special Forces required considerable training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," et seq.? If so, that's not "personal": that goes to social engineering, and I think it's a very, very relevant disclosure that should be made, pertinent to exactly what these forums are addressing. You keep acting like this question isn't here. It is. It's relevant. It's important. It isn't going away. How about a straight answer. Meanwhile, we have not only Burkley's own sworn affidavit that he supervised the autopsy, but have very certain and emphatic collaboration of the fact that Burkley supervised the autopsy from the extensive testimony of Jerrol Custer, who actually took every x-ray that was taken. So your efforts on this point to keep everyone who passes this way as confused as possible just tanked: Burkley supervised the autopsy. Period. And at all relevant times, Burkley knew about the throat wound. Period. Well, that little psy-op to keep the chain of command truncated at the named C.O.s and the Surgeon General also just got flushed down the pipes, because we now know that they got their marching orders from Burkley, which orders came in the general confusion over the passing of the baton to a new President and came from Burkley with all the force and power of an order from the office of the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States. That should be obvious to you of all people, since there is no evidence of record that either the Surgeon General, or the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School, or the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical Center independently had standing to originate any such order about who would carry out the autopsy of their late Commander in Chief. In fact, it's my opinion and informed belief that at all relevant times you have been thoroughly aware of this fact, and therefore have willfully propagated as fiction the false idea that the origin of order stopped below Burkley. But maybe you'd like to gainsay your knowledge that the order for Bethesda to conduct the autopsy originated from Burkley. If so, it seems to me that's going to water down your self-proclaimed "expert" status considerably, but maybe you have a good reason for having omitted this crucial information. Ashton Gray

Maybe first you can tell us where I "swear by Burkley's interview." Just quote me, that's all. My first post in this thread answers that question. The very title I gave to this thread answers that question—though I have not stipulated, and will not stipulate, that Humes was ignorant at all relevant times of the throat wound, or of the purloined projectile of record. I'm heading where the data trail leads. This isn't a thread about the brain or what happened to it. If you want to pursue the "If We Only Had a Brain" question with your buddy the Special Forces instructor, start a different thread and stop trying to drive this one off a cliff. Ashton Gray