Ashton Gray

Thanks for your comments and animation, Ashton.

However, keep in mind that ROBERT and LEE resembled each

other very much.

Jack

Right. Just the best I could do with what I have.

Ashton

Lee...Chris thinks it says:

SMPTE ACADEMY

I enlarged it very large and added contrast, and all I could read

was ACADEMY. But I think it could be very important. See

what you can do with it. Also note a VERSION NUMBER.

I WISH WE COULD MAKE IT OUT!

Jack

"SMPTE Academy" is almost certainly correct, with version number and date.

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_projector

• 35 mm and 16 mm each are sometimes run in sync with a separate reel of magnetic sound (known as double head projection because two reels are running on one projector in sync); the image goes through a gate while the magnetic reel passes over a sound head. Since the sound is on a separate reel, it does not need to be offset from the image. This system is usually used only for very low-budget or student productions, or for screening rough cuts of films before the creation of a final married print. Sync between the two reels is checked with SMPTE Academy leader, also known as countdown leader.
  

It looks like version 05 (?), with a date of 4/15/?? or 4/19/??

The versions of the SMPTE Academy leader shouldn't be too difficult to track down for someone who does that kind of work.

Ashton

I'd have to say in this case I think it's likely photos of the same person taken at different angles, accounting for the apparent different placement of ears.

The two photos I had to do a comparison with here are sort of apples and oranges because of the angles, but I've sized the mug shot so the key facial features align as closely as possible and have done this anim with overlays of varying degrees of opacity. The major features seem to me to line up pretty closely:

YMMV.

Ashton

I propose that we discuss a bit about how totally interrelated Watergate is to 11/22/63, and the resultant "government" we have had since that horrific Friday in Dallas.

On "the whole Bay of Pigs thing" comment, I still don't believe that it was some euphimism for the Kennedy assassination, because I don't think Nixon himself ever figured out exactly who did that. If he had, he never would have allowed himself to get set up and cut down the way he was. I think it was Nixon's very pointed commentary about Helms and Hunt (and CIA Deputy Directors Vernon Walters and Robert Cushman) and others at CIA having intentionally sabotaged the Bay of Pigs operation. I don't think there's any question that they did, and since Nixon had been in on the ground floor of its planning, I believe that he was able to see how CIA had sabotaged it. So I believe that when he said "Bay of Pigs," he meant "Bay of Pigs," and Helms knew exactly what Nixon was referring to, which is why Helms went nuclear.

(NOTICE to the first idiot who is tempted to demand that I explain why CIA would sabotage the operation: first you explain to me a rational reason why John Wayne Gacy killed men, then hacked up their dead bodies and buried them under his house. Then I might bother entertaining your nonsense.)

Of course the same CIA crew also was behind the JFK assassination. It's impossible that they weren't involved. It's simply impossible, that's all. Ten seconds of rational thought is all it takes. It also eradicates about 30,000 false trails. (Okay, I haven't counted the false trails. Maybe my estimate is conservative.)

Most of the JFK assassination evaluation I've seen falls short of the Ivy League sophistication of the snakes in Brooks Brothers suits who did JFK. As I posted briefly in the JFK forum recently, Kennedy named the manner of his dying when he stated his intention to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

Dealey plaza is a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre in which they did to him exactly what he had threatened to do to them, and the Greek theatre setting was a visual pun to ridicule his hubris.

This isn't some obsession of mine with imagery and symbolism: it's how these scum think, and it's everywhere throughout their spoor. Wherever you track them you find this same kind of convoluted, perverted, sick, twisted "intellectualism," and you ignore it or miss it at your peril.

I also believe that the kill shot came from the last place in the world anyone ever would suspect, and that they put it in the world's face later that afternoon in the biggest way possible—another part of their modus operandi that they cannot escape. But that's all I'm prepared to say on this at the moment.

And now Dawn Meredith, with malice aforethought, has dragged me kicking and screaming into the JFK assassination discussion. She is utterly impossible.

Ashton Gray

For decades their carte noir wall of secrecy has been "national security." The National Security Act of 1947 and its allied counterparts created the largest and most powerful organization of unprincipled criminals the world has ever known and gave them an almost unlimited budget and almost unlimited control over world affairs. It arguably was the culmination of mankind's cumulative stupidity. The Act almost unquestionably was an act of social suicide for the civilizations of man, and the slow-acting but very deadly poison still races unseen today through the most vital organs of civilization. It has almost done its job.

If no antidote is administered soon, the world as we know it is likely to die by its own hand.

Ashton Gray

Add to the very good list of general techniques compartmentalization in any given operation as well as in the structures of the covert world itself.

A very good point, Peter. Unfortunately, that one even has a double curve on it, because that exact "comparmentalization" can and is used as their other favorite weasel, "plausible deniability." The pathological xxxx L. Patrick Gray beat that one to death in his CIA-apologist scam that he ran with John Dean to carry out the CIA Watergate bait-and-switch that I'm currently writing about in a multi-part series in the Watergate forum. The next article in the series covers this exact point, where he used this line of CIA crap to give Helms an excuse for dragging out an answer on CIA interest in Ogarrio and Dahlberg for over a week, for no other reason than to set up the bait-and-switch. And this, of course, after Helms purportedly announced at 3:00 a.m. to Gray on the phone, immediately after the "arrests," that CIA "was not involved."

This is where Gray sowed the "right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" seed, which is one of the most idiotic, drooling, stump-dumb excuses ever uttered, since at all relevant times he and Dean were dealing directly with Helms through Helms's ventriloquist dummy, Vernon Walters, and by God, the head knows what all hands are doing.

The average spook gets classes in 'unconventional and psychological warfare', tradecraft techniques, including many of the techniques mentioned in Ashton's post, as well as other means of keeping things hidden and confused for any who might have the guts to try to look for the strings, hidden-history, facts, reality. I agree that in most operations now a false history (or multiple ones) are spun to hide the one real set of events, players, timing, purpose, means, methods, communication, etc.

It is a nightmare world that has been created. Those on the 'other' side of the national security hall of mirrors tell us they are doing it for our own good. To defeat the evil other. They rationalize that ever was thus and 'they' do it, so we must also...only better. Mostly, it is truth and history that get destroyed in the process and as we can clearly see, the general population are misled through these techniques via the controled and symbiotic, unchallenging mainstream media.

He who controls the past controls the present, and thus the future...it is all about control. Control of information and events - real and not - for control of everything. A few can see the forest for the trees - but in the Alice-in-Wonderland world of the National Security State many/most of the trees are not 'there' - not real - nor did the 'forest' grow the way it 'seems'.

...I would concur with Ashton's warning of our (nation and world's) fate if this is not soon elucidated and dismantled everywhere. Sadly, while there are schools for those who do these things there are few, if any, classes or efforts or persons devoted to undoing and exposing all this. History and control belongs in the hands of the people, not the smoke and mirror magicians, puppet-masters who rule is illegitimate and by deception and stealth.

Very eloquently said (and forgive me for the paragraph breaks, but I kept getting lost).

And it's sure not just my warning; here are Mae Brussell's prophetic words from 1973:

• Colleges and academic institutions have no courses on agent provocateurs or how to recognize espionage operations.
  ...There is no information available on ways to protect society from sabotage. The Watergate Affair exposes how investigators and the Dept. of Justice work with their espionage agents in acts which amount to treason.
  ...History classes devote little time to the evils of fascism. They never teach specific methods which bring the condition into existence.
  —Mae Brussell, The Realist July 1973
  "Why is the Senate Watergate Committee Functioning as Part of the Cover-Up?"
  

If I start on the educational system, I'll be here for a book. Somebody needs to start banging on the ship's bell with a clangorous clamor and not stop until all hands are on deck. This is not a drill.

Ashton

Great, Ashton!

Best of all was the closing line...

"With all WARRANTED respect". But Bush is too dumb to get it.

He thinks he warrants it.

Jack

Check.

Ashton

The letter below has been e-mailed and mailed, and, as specified in the letter, is now being posted in a public place. The articles cited in the letter with web URLs linking to this forum have been converted, in this post, to be active links within the forum. I ardently urge others to send similar letters demanding action that is fully warranted by the cited evidence, and to post them, so that a public message is sent that will rise into a roar that will rattle their panes and timbers.

If you are solely interested in the JFK assassination, and consider this, then, is really of no relevance to you, just bluntly: you have no faintest clue what the JFK assassination was about, and therefore deserve to continue picking through the hopelessly picked-over bones and thousands of phony-bones they've thrown you for another 46 years—which is what you will be doing if you live that long.

As only a passing comment: John F. Kennedy selected the exact nature of his own death when he said he intended to "splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." They fulfilled his own prophecy for him in reverse, and did it in a mockery of a Greek amphitheatre to ridicule his hubris.

Here is the letter.

Ashton Gray

_______________________________________

President George Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

comments@whitehouse.gov

Vice President Richard Cheney

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

vice_president@whitehouse.gov

U.S. House of Representatives

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

intelligence.hpsci@mail.house.gov

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Chairman Pat Roberts

senator_roberts@exchange.senate.gov (Dead address; must send through asinine web form)

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear Sir,

In compliance with 18 USC §2382 MISPRISION OF TREASON, this is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of willful and knowing overt and covert acts in violation of 18 USC §2381 TREASON et seq., including but not limited to 18 USC §2384 SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, committed against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and the People of the United States during time of war, beginning no later than March 1969 with the transfer of materials protected for purposes of national security under the laws of the United States (commonly known as the "Pentagon Papers") into the hands of a person or persons conspiring to release those materials domestically without authorization as an act of war against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and against the United States during time of war;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of a continuing SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY by persons currently employed by CIA and other intelligence agencies and oversight bodies within the government of the United States to protect the guilty and prevent public knowledge of the full scope and true purpose of the willful acts of TREASON attendant to, and further acts of TREASON pursuant to, such release;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of complicity and conspiracy by persons who were contemporaneously employed by CIA to use these seditious acts of TREASON and the treasonous release of the Pentagon Papers to commit further TREASONOUS ACTS by concocting fraudulent "crimes" and framing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during time of war for having instigated or approved these fictitious "crimes," and, in so doing, to perpetrate a fraud upon the courts and Congress in order to effect further TREASON;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of complicity and conspiracy by persons not directly and contemporaneously employed by CIA, but nonetheless working to further the ends and aims of the TREASON, in carrying out overt and covert acts of SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY and TREASON against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in or about, but not limited to, 1970 through 1973, and knowingly perjuring themselves in courts and in Congress for the felonious purpose of overthrowing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of persons furthering the purposes and scope of the TREASON by knowingly and willfully working in the interests of CIA and related agencies and organizations to plan and execute petty crimes for the purpose of providing a fraudulent "legal foundation" for exonerating the main perpetrators of the TREASON related to the Pentagon Papers from criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence that persons in the employ or under the direction of CIA did stage a completely false and fictitious "first break-in" at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. on or about Memorial Day weekend 1972 in order to provide alibis for some number of the actors, during which time they possibly, from evidence, conducted a clandestine mission for CIA that may have involved felonious kidnapping and/or assassination on foreign soil, effected through the illegal and unauthorized appropriation and use of assets and property of the Office of the President of the United States, while acting under color of authority of the White House in furtherance of their TREASONOUS aims;

And, FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of MISPRISION OF TREASON and a CONTINUING CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT MISPRISION OF TREASON committed by any and all persons who, at any relevant time, were cognizant by any means of this TREASON and SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON and who, with standing, did not timely report it, investigate it, or prosecute it per the following relevant statutes from United States Code Title 18:

________________

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

( a ) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

( b ) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

( c ) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

( d ) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

________________

At all relevant times you have had CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE and IMPLIED NOTICE of all the foregoing and have not acted to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators and co-conspirators. You now have ACTUAL NOTICE of all the foregoing and of MISPRISION OF TREASON.

Furthermore, summaries of portions of the copious amounts of available evidence of the foregoing have been posted in public places, and this is ACTUAL NOTICE of their appearance in those public places to which you are known to have easy and unencumbered access, including but not limited to:

• 1.

Persons whose names appear in the cited summaries and are believed to be living, and who may or may not have specific personal knowledge of any such activities, but who are known to have been connected in some way with persons contemporaneously employed by CIA, include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Daniel Ellsberg
  Everett Howard Hunt
  a.k.a. E. Howard Hunt, Howard Hunt, Edward L. Warren, Edward J. Hamilton, Eduardo
  George Gordon Battle Liddy
  a.k.a. G. Gordon Liddy, Gordon Liddy, George F. Leonard
  Alfred C. Baldwin III
  John Wesley Dean III
  Charles Colson
  Michael Douglas Caddy
  Bernard Leon Barker
  a.k.a. Frank Carter, Fran Carter, Macho
  Eugenio Rolando Martinez y Creaga
  a.k.a. Gene Valdes, G. Valdes, Jene Valdes, J. Valdes, E. Rolando Martinez
  Virgilio Gonzales
  a.k.a. Raoul Godoy, Raul Godoy, Raoul Godoy Goboy, Raul Godoy Goboy
  Robert "Bob" Woodward
  Robert Foster "Bob" Bennett
  

My knowledge of the foregoing is through innocent and legal address to evidence in the public record and not through any complicity or illegal means.

It is my best information and belief that some or all of the evidence cited above has been condensed into more formal Executive Summaries by persons whose knowledge of the foregoing also was attained through innocent, legal, and noncomplicit means, and has been presented by those persons as ACTUAL NOTICE to civic, government, and law enforcement officials and representatives at a variety of levels and may have reached you.

Regardless of your possession or cognizance of any such presentation, with this ACTUAL NOTICE you have all evidence needed to warrant an immediate investigation, and you are bound by Constitutional and statutory obligation and oath to a fiduciary responsibility to pursue timely, with vigor, and with all due diligence, these grave matters. To do otherwise is to make yourself a party to all or part of the foregoing.

Given that the evidence cited above has lain in the public record for decades in one form or another, and given your IMPLIED NOTICE and CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE at all relevant times, the very fact of this ACTUAL NOTICE having to be sent already is prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty, if not complicity. I therefore demand that you aggressively fulfill your obligation, oath, and duty in this matter; that you make your intentions public at once; and that you keep the People of the United States fully briefed and informed on every step of the investigation and on all findings.

This ACTUAL NOTICE is being e-mailed, mailed, and posted in a public forum.

With all warranted respect,

Ashton Gray

The letter below has been e-mailed and mailed, and, as specified in the letter, is now being posted in a public place. The articles cited in the letter with web URLls linking to this forum have been converted, in this post, to be active links within the forum. I ardently urge others to send similar letters demanding action that is fully warranted by the cited evidence, and to post them, so that a public message is sent that will rise into a roar that will rattle their panes and timbers.

Ashton Gray

_______________________________________

President George Bush

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

comments@whitehouse.gov

Vice President Richard Cheney

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500

vice_president@whitehouse.gov

U.S. House of Representatives

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

intelligence.hpsci@mail.house.gov

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Chairman Pat Roberts

senator_roberts@exchange.senate.gov (Dead address; must send through asinine web form)

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Dear Sir,

In compliance with 18 USC §2382 MISPRISION OF TREASON, this is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of willful and knowing overt and covert acts in violation of 18 USC §2381 TREASON et seq., including but not limited to 18 USC §2384 SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY, committed against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and the People of the United States during time of war, beginning no later than March 1969 with the transfer of materials protected for purposes of national security under the laws of the United States (commonly known as the "Pentagon Papers") into the hands of a person or persons conspiring to release those materials domestically without authorization as an act of war against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States and against the United States during time of war;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of a continuing SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY by persons currently employed by CIA and other intelligence agencies and oversight bodies within the government of the United States to protect the guilty and prevent public knowledge of the full scope and true purpose of the willful acts of TREASON attendant to, and further acts of TREASON pursuant to, such release;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of complicity and conspiracy by persons who were contemporaneously employed by CIA to use these seditious acts of TREASON and the treasonous release of the Pentagon Papers to commit further TREASONOUS ACTS by concocting fraudulent "crimes" and framing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during time of war for having instigated or approved these fictitious "crimes," and, in so doing, to perpetrate a fraud upon the courts and Congress in order to effect further TREASON;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of complicity and conspiracy by persons not directly and contemporaneously employed by CIA, but nonetheless working to further the ends and aims of the TREASON, in carrying out overt and covert acts of SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY and TREASON against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces in or about, but not limited to, 1970 through 1973, and knowingly perjuring themselves in courts and in Congress for the felonious purpose of overthrowing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of persons furthering the purposes and scope of the TREASON by knowingly and willfully working in the interests of CIA and related agencies and organizations to plan and execute petty crimes for the purpose of providing a fraudulent "legal foundation" for exonerating the main perpetrators of the TREASON related to the Pentagon Papers from criminal prosecution for their treasonous acts;

And FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence that persons in the employ or under the direction of CIA did stage a completely false and fictitious "first break-in" at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. on or about Memorial Day weekend 1972 in order to provide alibis for some number of the actors, during which time they possibly, from evidence, conducted a clandestine mission for CIA that may have involved felonious kidnapping and/or assassination on foreign soil, effected through the illegal and unauthorized appropriation and use of assets and property of the Office of the President of the United States, while acting under color of authority of the White House in furtherance of their TREASONOUS aims;

And, FURTHERMORE,

This is ACTUAL NOTICE of substantial evidence of MISPRISION OF TREASON and a CONTINUING CONSPIRACY TO EFFECT MISPRISION OF TREASON committed by any and all persons who, at any relevant time, were cognizant by any means of this TREASON and SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON and who, with standing, did not timely report it, investigate it, or prosecute it per the following relevant statutes from United States Code Title 18:

________________

§ 2381. Treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2383. Rebellion or insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

§ 2382. Misprision of treason

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

§ 2384. Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

§ 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

( a ) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

( b ) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

( c ) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

( d ) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.

________________

At all relevant times you have had CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE and IMPLIED NOTICE of all the foregoing and have not acted to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators and co-conspirators. You now have ACTUAL NOTICE of all the foregoing and of MISPRISION OF TREASON.

Furthermore, summaries of portions of the copious amounts of available evidence of the foregoing have been posted in public places, and this is ACTUAL NOTICE of their appearance in those public places to which you are known to have easy and unencumbered access, including but not limited to:

• 1.

Persons whose names appear in the cited summaries and are believed to be living, and who may or may not have specific personal knowledge of any such activities, but who are known to have been connected in some way with persons contemporaneously employed by CIA, include, but are not necessarily limited to:

• Daniel Ellsberg
  Everett Howard Hunt
  a.k.a. E. Howard Hunt, Howard Hunt, Edward L. Warren, Edward J. Hamilton, Eduardo
  George Gordon Battle Liddy
  a.k.a. G. Gordon Liddy, Gordon Liddy, George F. Leonard
  Alfred C. Baldwin III
  John Wesley Dean III
  Charles Colson
  Michael Douglas Caddy
  Bernard Leon Barker
  a.k.a. Frank Carter, Fran Carter, Macho
  Eugenio Rolando Martinez y Creaga
  a.k.a. Gene Valdes, G. Valdes, Jene Valdes, J. Valdes, E. Rolando Martinez
  Virgilio Gonzales
  a.k.a. Raoul Godoy, Raul Godoy, Raoul Godoy Goboy, Raul Godoy Goboy
  Robert "Bob" Woodward
  Robert Foster "Bob" Bennett
  

My knowledge of the foregoing is through innocent and legal address to evidence in the public record and not through any complicity or illegal means.

It is my best information and belief that some or all of the evidence cited above has been condensed into more formal Executive Summaries by persons whose knowledge of the foregoing also was attained through innocent, legal, and noncomplicit means, and has been presented by those persons as ACTUAL NOTICE to civic, government, and law enforcement officials and representatives at a variety of levels and may have reached you.

Regardless of your possession or cognizance of any such presentation, with this ACTUAL NOTICE you have all evidence needed to warrant an immediate investigation, and you are bound by Constitutional and statutory obligation and oath to a fiduciary responsibility to pursue timely, with vigor, and with all due diligence, these grave matters. To do otherwise is to make yourself a party to all or part of the foregoing.

Given that the evidence cited above has lain in the public record for decades in one form or another, and given your IMPLIED NOTICE and CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE at all relevant times, the very fact of this ACTUAL NOTICE having to be sent already is prima facie evidence of dereliction of duty, if not complicity. I therefore demand that you aggressively fulfill your obligation, oath, and duty in this matter; that you make your intentions public at once; and that you keep the People of the United States fully briefed and informed on every step of the investigation and on all findings.

This ACTUAL NOTICE is being e-mailed, mailed, and posted in a public forum.

With all warranted respect,

Ashton Gray

I have updated the lead article in this topic to add an event that has presented an enormously difficult task in attempting to place it correctly in time. This is bizarre in itself, since the event attracted a good deal of attention around the time it happened, if only briefly.

The event is the forcible silencing of Martha Mitchell, which Mae Brussell called a kidnapping.

There are a number of associates and acquaintances who have struggled with the correct date of this event as much as I, and only after I posted the original article did one of these other researchers send me what I believe to be a compelling "date isolater" taken from the Congressional testimony of L. Patrick Gray.

By all accounts, Gray was staying at the same motel in Newport Beach, California as was Martha Mitchell on the night the phone was ripped from the wall while Martha Mitchell was on the phone with a UPI reporter, who some reports have claimed to have been Helen Thomas—although that is in some question.

The way the Martha Mitchell incident date has been isolated arose, strangely enough, from L. Patrick Gray's own Congressional testimony, where there is yet another briefly disputed date: the date on which Gray receives a pivotal phone call informing him that John Dean is in charge of the Watergate investigation for the White House. Gray testifies that this occurred on Wednesday, 21 June 1972, but his date is wrong; the questioner, Senator Montoya, says: "I have it from your phone logs that it was the 20th." Gray doesn't (can't) argue the point, and says that he is certain that the phone call about John Dean being in charge of the investigation at the White House came on "the very first day that I was back from my trip to the West coast."

Therefore the Martha Mitchell event had to have been no later than the night of 19 June 1972.

It should come, then, as no surprise at all to those following this series, and understanding the connections, that the Woodward-Bernstein fiction novel, All the President's Men, gives a completely false date for this event as being June 22, 1972.

There it had sat—although it made no sense there—in all subsequent research until what I consider to have been a brilliant piece of research detective work that I've been fortunate enough to have had shared with me.

Therefore, until or unless some even more compelling piece of evidence comes along, I feel that this disquieting event has been properly located in time, and has its own relevance to what CIA had to keep covered up. It also has very important relevance to affirmation of L. Patrick Gray's knowing collusion in silencing Martha Mitchell in order to hide CIA covert activities in Watergate. Martha Mitchell was just one more casualty in the CIA's premeditated assault on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war, and L. Patrick Gray was a party to her forcible silencing.

Ashton Gray

See, Dawn, he still refuses to answer the question... Why is it logical for "Ashton" to jump to conclusions when Mr. Caddy refuses to answer his questions but illogical for me to jump to conclusions when "Ashton" refuses to answer my questions?

Pat:

I have no clue as to whatever question you are making reference.

Hi Dawn,

I always find your posts and questions of interest, but I'm not sure exactly why you'd even be wondering about whatever "questions" Mr. Speer has for me.

I can only presume you might have missed (or forgotten?) some of what transpired before, so I'm going to make one more record of it here.

All the way back on 27 June 2006, after weeks of an unbroken pattern of Pat Speer willfully spreading gross distortions about things he falsely claimed I had said; after his repeated, unbroken pattern of hijacking and vandalizing and sabotaging important threads with off-topic, inane, and wholly irrelevant "questions;" after days of his following me into every thread I posted in and using debased smear tactics against me with the most juvenile, dishonest, and reprehensible tactics conceivable; and after I observed that moderaters here apparently were content to condone such perverse and destructive forum stalking, I elected to sever all correspondence with the wretch, and made it a solemn vow:

I want to make you this personal undying vow: this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me. Happy trails.

I later elected to suspend that vow briefly, but only to honor a previous vow I had made to debate the issue of the fictional "Diem cables." Even there, I said clearly, declaratively, and unequivocally to Mr. Speer:

My entire rebuttal to your Bazooka Joe comic follies will be posted in this thread within 24 hours of the posting of this message. Watch for it.

When it's posted, fulfilling my vow to answer on the fraud of the "Diem cables," my other vow goes back into full force and effect.

My "other vow," of course was the one first posted above: "this is the last response to anything you post in this or any forum that you ever will see from me."

And as good as my word, when I had finished demolishing his "case" for the so-called "Diem cables," and had allowed him to rebut, and had further disintegrated his "rebuttal," I issued this statement to him, with my closing argument, a statement that even a rutabega could understand:

This is my last farewell to you, Mr. Speer, because with this summation, I permanently sever all correspondence with you on any basis. And the same goes now for your teammate, Raymond Carroll.

Good-bye.

I've been toying with the possibility that Mr. Speer and Mr. Carroll both are sub-rutabega life forms, since they still keep stalking me obsessively.

Either that, or, like rapists, they don't care what "NO!" means.

So if any of the above had been missed by you as it was happening—which might have led you to feel, falsely, that there could be some purpose in pursuing that particular line of discussion with Mr. Speer—I hope that with this I have permanently erased any dim fringes where misunderstanding might breed.

Ashton

I experienced the exact same phenomenon in two of the forums. Endless hangng with "11 of 12 items completed" or some such nonsense.

Clearing the browser cache, erasing the browser "history," then quitting and restarting the browser seemed to exorcise whatever crap was being caused by the delightful "clicksor.com" Trying to go to "clicksor.com" alone results in more near-eternal hanging. So does even Google's cache of it.

What is this parasite? Is this why the "education forum" suddenly has "Sexy Single Women Are Waiting. Come and get 'em while they're hot" banner ads showing up?

Ashton Gray

The following article began as a necessary set of caveats to the article, "The CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch—19 June 1972," Part II of a series of related articles on how John Dean and L. Patrick Gray helped the CIA frame the White House. While it is most directly germane to Watergate, it also has application to the Kennedy assassination, so I am posting it in this forum as well as in the Watergate forum.

I started out attempting in the articles themselves to explain the CIA black psy-ops techniques integral to the fraud they perpetrated, but it became so unwieldy that the only solution was to break these caveats out into this separate article.

This has no pretensions to being any exhaustive study of such black mental techniques. It merely outlines major ones used in the packaging and selling of a CIA fraud of remarkable scope known as "Watergate." That said, these same techniques will be found, when looked for, in other purported but manufactured black op "histories," or wherever there is an attempt to hide the truth of past events with malign fictions.

HISTORY BY MANUFACTURED CONFUSION

What is commonly known as "Watergate" is largely a false "universe" of purported history made up of some truth and a great many lies. It is an infinitely elastic universe, because it can't possibly exist except in each individual perceiver's mind. Once the volunteered "confessions" and accounts and testimony are closely compared, so many contradictions emerge that in order for much of "Watergate" to have happened at all, a universe with multiple time streams is required.

These contradictions (and, importantly, omissions of truth) aren't the result of mere "misperceptions" by different eyewitnesses: these are cooked, manufactured fictions by people supposedly "confessing" their roles, and their accounts—and even staged "events"—contain specific known elements of psy-ops that are planted for no other purpose than to confuse, and, by confusing, to deflect close inspection and comparison that would reveal the lies.

CONTRADICTIONS TO CREATE CONFUSION

A time-honored and favorite technique for creating confusion is to have two separate and completely contradictory accounts of what purportedly is the same event. The mind locks. It cannot be resolved. No certain truth can be reached at that point in "time" because both contradictory accounts cannot be true. The mind is forced to make a choice between two accounts that might both be false, or to leave it entirely unresolved and still attempt to link that enduring mystery to other claimed or actual events that depend on it or take place around it. "Watergate" is a mine field of such mental traps.

CONTRADICTION BY MULTIPLE SOURCES: THE COMMONALITIES

One frequently used technique to spread a tremendous amount of confusion is to supply seemingly "plausible" accounts of the "same" events through different sources, with the varying accounts originating at different times and places. Each of the divergent accounts has certain major commonly agreed-upon or sometimes true components. These are crucial to the fraud. The perceiver's mind latches onto these common components they've heard about from "multiple sources," and attempts to synthesize those together into a cohesive whole, no matter how many details are at variance and odds with each other. The hopelessly contradictory details most often are overlooked entirely. That factor alone is the key to the success of the fraud.

That's the way "Watergate" was packaged. To hear one participant's testimony, it makes "sense." To read another's book, it makes "sense." The mind constructs a mental "universe" in which all these things are able to take place, and in which time not only is completely elastic, but even can be, and often must be, subconsciously subdivided into entirely separate parallel, but unsynchronized, time streams.

THE MANIPULATION OF TIME

What the human imagination can do with time is infinite. When presented, as in "Watergate," with multiple seemingly consistent but actually contradictory accounts and stories from multiple sources—each of which purports to be "fact"—the perceiver's mind can, and will, subconsciously create parallel time streams—like a railroad track suddenly splitting off into four or six different tracks, each regulated with a different clock, those then merging again somehow at the commonalities, then splitting again, and so on.

This gets so absurd in "Watergate" that when exposed it can't help but be funny, even with the realization that the CIA operation was an act Treason.

Only a very careful and detailed comparison of all the accounts side-by-side, on one and only one time stream—the one governed by the motion of heavenly bodies and measured by clocks—reveals that no such set of events possibly could have taken place in the universe we all agree upon and know of as "objective reality." Law enforcement now uses this investigative tool of creating a timeline regularly, though inexactly.

If there is any one tool most effective in deconstructing such false and willfully fraudulent "histories" as Watergate it is a meticulously detailed timeline into which all accounts by the actors are recorded. False "facts" then become starkly apparent. Its importance can't be overstated, and it is the single most neglected and misused tool of investigative research.

FALSEHOODS AND OMISSIONS

Two major building blocks of entirely false "histories" are falsehoods and omissions.

Through the use of a very exacting timeline, the most blatant falsehoods can be located with relative ease. Once that's done, more subtle falsehoods inevitably emerge, since they are necessary to the greater ones. By that stripping away of layers of falsity, omissions begin to emerge, the most obvious ones being the omission of whatever truth the lies were invented to conceal.

Omissions are their own subject. Inevitably, where a false "reality" is being created to supplant or cover up the truth, many small omissions will be scattered throughout. They are very difficult to perceive, because they are not there. This sounds obvious, but it is almost always missed. (This is the irony of describing "nothing.") People fail to look for what should be there—but isn't. They merely accept what is supplied (even when what is supplied is false), and create their own "explanations" to fill in the gaps. Life abhors a vacuum. It is very difficult for life to perceive a vacuum, an absence, a "not there," so life tends to fill the gap, often subconsciously. It takes practice to look for omissions. Some people find it next to impossible, so automatic and instant is their construction of "reasonable explanations" for entirely unreasonable circumstances, whether those be falsehoods or, commonly, omissions.

Thus researchers and analysts and writers playing the popular indoor sport of "connect the dots" with Watergate (and many other such "events" in history) often have been only connecting a considerable amount of fiction with very little verifiable fact, building mental "bridges" to span the gaps. Often they have attempted to do this over considerable yawning chasms, and hence a flood of "theories" attempting to bridge the gaps and resolve the contradictions. Results and conclusions of such methods inevitably are false in varying degrees, and, however "interesting," are ultimately unsatisfactory, since people by and large have a sense on some level of when they have been denied the truth.

THE PLURAL/SINGULAR MIND SPINNER

A subset of falsehoods, this is a black ops technique used like repeated blows of a blunt instrument to the head all throughout "Watergate" and its "testimony." It is used over and over and over to confound and confuse, but is so subtle as almost to escape notice entirely.

The basic technique is to keep changing the singular/plural reference to "things" that play a role, often "things" that never had any existence at all.

It is used in the number of "bugs" supposedly planted in the Watergate, when there were none at all. It is used by Hunt and Douglas Caddy in the number of partners of Caddy's law firm supposedly contacted by Caddy. It is used by Baldwin in referring to the number of receiving "units" in the Howard Johnson's rooms. It is used in the number of Howard Johnson's rooms. It is used by Alfred Baldwin in the number of "logs" he purportedly hand-delivered to CREP headquarters (the real number is zero). And it is used by John Dean, L. Patrick Gray, Charles Colson, and E. Howard Hunt in their "Diem cables" fraud.

It is sheer hell on the mind. It keeps it in a constant state of uncertainty at a very low level of awareness, and it is almost never noticed by anybody unless this black psy-ops technique is known as a well-trained black operation to help keep things in a state of constant confusion. That is its purpose.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DUPLICATES

This is a caveat regarding a very deadly psy-op technique that was warned about in the articles on the entirely fictional "fabricated Diem cables": the psy-op principle of planting near-duplicates as a method of creating enormous confusion.

Certainly, life can and does produce "coincidences" of seeming similarity. But there is a knowing malefic use of this phenomenon that is done solely to confuse. It has been called a "burdensome fog" by John Gillespie.

One vicious example in "Watergate" is the purported "logs" of wiretaps. The stories of the co-conspirators allude to two complete (but entirely fictional) sets of these "logs": one set supposedly made by Alfred Baldwin, another by G. Gordon Liddy that purportedly was created to "fix" Baldwin's set—which never existed in the first place. (Notice the constant need to "fix" something.) None were ever made by Alfred Baldwin at all. The "logs" created by Liddy were actually just scripts supplied to him via CIA that he dictated himself and handed to his secretary to type. Then even those were destroyed by Liddy after they had been used briefly as nothing more than stage props to make people believe that wiretaps had existed. Fiction leaves no paper trail.

Something almost never even noticed is that the phony Ellsberg psychatrist "break-in" and the later purported but entirely fictional "first break-in" at the Watergate are written to be extremely similar: both over holiday weekends, both using many of the same personnel, both having "walkie-talkie problems," both failing to accomplish their purported (entirely false) "objectives," and many more close similarities that one can count once the black psy-op technique to generate confusion is known.

Another critical example is John Dean's assistant, Fred Fielding, whose last-name counterpart, Dr. Louis Fielding, is so important in the "Pentagon Papers" fraud, itself merely the opening act in the greater CIA fraud. It is no accident at all that Dean was supplied with an "assistant" whose last name was Fielding. Both "Fieldings" are linked to the activities of E. Howard Hunt in crucial ways. In some of the testimony, particularly Dean's, only the last name is used repeatedly. This is a trained technique used repeatedly for maximum destruction. It is tantamount to a stun grenade every place it is used. It scatters attention off on two different "tracks" widely separated in time: in this case the "Dr. Fielding" CIA op of early September 1971, and the "Fred Fielding" involvement in the other CIA op, the fraud of the "Diem cables." The complexity of this black "Fielding" operation alone, and how time was maliciously manipulated with it, is going to be the subject of a separate article.

For now, suffice it to say that John Dean is the person whose role it was to make the "revelations" of both of these devastating CIA fraudulent operations, both involving "Fieldings" and E. Howard Hunt in some crucial way, and Dean did it when he had maximum world exposure: in the Senate Watergate hearings. Both of these "revelations" and "confessions" by Dean had world-shaking consequences, and if you think for a moment that the seeding of "Fieldings" into both of these catastrophic "confessions" is an accident, do us both a favor and don't ever read another syllable of anything I've written.

I'll end this section by saying that someone in these forums might want to ask Douglas Caddy just what he knows about the circumstances of Fred Fielding's "hiring" as John Dean's assistant. I won't be asking him. I don't need to.

CLOSED DOORS AND CLANDESTINE INTERACTION

A psy-op technique heavily relied upon in "Watergate" to create the conflicts and fictions described generally above is alleged private, secret talks and meetings and activities between two (or a few) of the principal actors, with nothing more than their own assertions of what the subject and substance of such an interaction was. An almost inconceivable amount of what we know as "Watergate" is built on no more foundation, and it is no foundation at all. It often is pure fiction.

In most instances where we literally are forced to rely on the accounts of a small number of the co-conspirators interacting, one of more of the persons involved has known CIA background, connections, clearances, employment, or all four. The Watergate literature is so strewn with one-on-one encounters that the exceptions are easier to count than the instances.

All of the people involved in these countless clandestine interactions have been solidly documented as having told knowing, willful lies, even under oath, about these same events. Therefore, it is of an importance that cannot be overstated to recognize, in each instance where a private meeting or phone call purportedly takes place between two criminal co-conspirators, that the only thing that can be known with any relative certainty is that such an interchange took place.

Worse than that, there are very important places in the record where close inspection and comparison leads to the only reasonable conclusion that even the claim of such two-party (or more) interaction is itself a completely manufactured fiction, never mind any claimed "substance" or subject.

One startlingly elaborate example is the entirely manufactured and fictional Watergate "first break-in" and its two-week aftermath. It involves seven people over three days of whole-cloth fiction. Layered on that is even more fiction consisting of a set of "events" that never happened at all, but is superimposed over the real events of two weeks in June 1972.

HIDDEN COMMUNICATIONS

The entire Intelligence Cult relies almost exclusively on hidden communications. This article has dealt with only a small facet of this, one used to manufacture fictions in complete secret for public performance and dissemination. A far more deadly facet is that wherever these filthy, lying vermin are at work in the walls, the real-universe truth of what is being done (and has been done) lies only hidden inside heavily fortified communication systems exclusive to the Intelligence Cult.

For decades their carte noir wall of secrecy has been "national security." The National Security Act of 1947 and its allied counterparts created the largest and most powerful organization of unprincipled criminals the world has ever known and gave them an almost unlimited budget and almost unlimited control over world affairs. It arguably was the culmination of mankind's cumulative stupidity. The Act almost unquestionably was an act of social suicide for the civilizations of man, and the slow-acting but very deadly poison still races unseen today through the most vital organs of civilization. It has almost done its job.

If no antidote is administered soon, the world as we know it is likely to die by its own hand.

SUMMARY

As stated in the introductory matter, this article is merely an outline of some of the more deadly techniques used by CIA and its murderous sisters in its black ops against mankind. My hope is that this article will be amended and expanded by others so mankind can begin to catalog the arsenal of deadly weapons being used against it by these criminals on a daily basis.

It is an act of self-preservation for mankind, and probably the only hope it has left, for these techniques are not relegated to historical frauds like the "Pentagon Papers" and "Watergate": the daily news you're getting right this instant is filled with these same black ops.

These are the techniques used right now, today, to keep the world in the exact state of turmoil and war and conflict that justifies the existence of this gang of amoral murdering, lying thugs and their obscene budgets. They create, continually, the "need" for their "services" in a self-feeding frenzy of self-serving world annihilation.

This is the snake consuming itself, and it has no conscience or compunctions about consuming every last one of us in the process.

Ashton Gray

These are Liddy’s words:

And that’s what he [McGruder] wanted. So that when I went back to Hunt and Hunt was upset. He said, “My God,” he said, “Do you know how much trouble it took us to get in there in the first place? All those three entries,”

Yeah, but Liddy's a xxxx. He's a proven xxxx. And he lied about this, too.

They didn't "get in there in the first place." There was no "first break-in" at all:

So all this "Liddy said": it's nothing but more CIA-written lies you're packaging and peddling here. Why?

There were no "three entries":

All I can opine about Liddy's "deposition" is that it's perjury on top of a fraud on top of a hoax. As far as I personally can deduce from all the evidence contained in those articles above, Liddy is a pathological xxxx who walks around wrapped in the American flag, beating the drum for his patriotism after he masterminded a wholesale assault on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war and contributed significantly to the deaths of untold numbers of Americans while he was playing his cheap, dirty little spy games. You can tell him that's my opinion of his "deposition."

There isn't a shred of evidence for any of his anecdotal claims, or Hunt's either—both of whom, by the way, were your clients. So alll you're doing is propagating the CIA lies further.

Why would you want to do that, Doug?

Why won't you go anywhere near any of the articles linked to above? Why do you avoid them like leprosy? Why are you just busy spreading the official CIA propaganda line instead of addressing the actual issues that prove that what you just posted is a garbage bag of Liddy lies?

Ashton Gray

After much longer than I could have imagined possible, I finally have posted Part II of this series:

The CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch—19 June 1972

I had made promises to several people in several threads that I was going to post such an article, which first became a series, and now is practically threatening to become book-length. Although I was very familiar with the events (and false claims of events), and although I knew of their complexity, I had not come even close to correctly estimating the difficulty of attempting to explain that complexity, and the malevolent CIA machinations involved, to others.

It became so daunting that I finally had to extract from the work an entirely separate article, CIA Psy-Ops of Watergate and Beyond, which is an indispensable companion piece to the series. I strongly advise not to attempt to read the Part II article without visiting that outline of CIA psy-ops used in Watergate.

Even then, Part II may be as difficult to read as it was to write. There enters a subjectivity factor where authorship becomes welded to the very confusion that is built into the psy-ops one is attempting to explain and analyze, and objective assessment almost can't be made by the writer himself about whether the enormous confusion generated is from the inherent pernicious nature of the material, or just really awful writing.

I finally had to submit it as it is, and hope that, for those who can endure, it will somehow reveal the underlying motives and malign design of the instigators and perpetrators who visited this catastrophic fraud on the world.

To those who I promised an article on this subject over a week ago, I apologise for having taken this long, and for even now being probably only half way through. I only can devote so many hours of the day to it, but with your continued forbearance I will get there.

Ashton Gray

PART II: The CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch—19 June 1972

It is Monday morning in Washington, D.C., 19 June 1972. The town is buzzing with news of the "break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate.

The Washington Post opens its coverage that Monday with the following two paragraphs:

• One of the five men arrested early Saturday in the attempt to bug the Democratic National Committee headquarters is the salaried security coordinator for President Nixon's reelection committee.
  The suspect, former CIA employee James W. McCord Jr., 53, also holds a separate contract to provide security services to the Republican National Committee, GOP national chairman Bob Dole said yesterday.
  

The CIA, through mouthpieces Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward at the Post, have set "the fork." The investigation, and public interest, can only go one of two ways: CIA or White House. It won't go both. For a time it will be allowed to seem to hover between the two, then to drift toward CIA. But at the crucial moment, the trap will be sprung, the bait-and-switch will be made in one stunning day, and only one signpost will be left reading: "White House."

Notice that there still is no mention of E. Howard Hunt in the Post's coverage, even though Woodward has known about the connection to Hunt for two days, and even had notified Hunt on Saturday morning (in Part I of this series of articles). They are building suspense for the Hunt revelation, saying only:

• Police sources said last night that they were seeking a sixth man in connection with the attempted bugging. The sources would give no other details.
  

Of course this is a bare-faced lie by Bradlee and Woodward. They know damned well that the "sixth man" is E. Howard Hunt. They also omit any further mention in their Monday story about the serialized $100 bills. That had already been planted in their first story the day before, on Sunday. Most of the entire frame-up of the White House is already in place.

We are about ready to attempt to go sequentially through the day of Monday, 19 June 1972. The word "attempt" is used advisedly, because given the number of explosive head-on collisions in the testimony, the task has been made, very literally, impossible. I don't mean "difficult." I mean impossible.

It has not been made impossible by some whim of God or freakish act of Nature. It has been made impossible by careful design of man. So convoluted and destructive are the methods used that I've written a separate article to deal with them: CIA Psy-Ops of Watergate and Beyond. If you continue this effort below without reading those caveats, abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

And so we embark on a journey through one day that is wilder than any amusement park ride ever conceived or built, and I am compelled to give you one last dire warning: you may not be able to get through this article at all, at least without several attempts. It can work as a soporific and make you extremely drowsy. It can make you physically uncomfortable. It can make you feel dizzy and disoriented. Although some may rightly or wrongly attribute such phenomena to my writing, such discomforts are the job of the psy-ops techniques described in the article linked to above, and no writer can avoid them. The very measure of their treachery is that it is impossible to discuss "Watergate" at all without becoming, however unwillingly, a party to them.

You have been warned:

• Monday, 19 June 1972
  
• Although the Watergate arrests have taken place over 48 hours earlier, Acting head of the FBI, L. Patrick Gray, for reasons unknown, is in Palm Springs, California. Attorney General Richard Kleindienst purportedly calls Gray at 7:32 a.m., telling Gray—in Palm Springs—that he, Kleindienst, "wants to be briefed on the break-in." [NOTE: As strange as this seems, it gets even stranger later regarding the whereabouts of L. Patrick Gray.]
  
• E. Howard Hunt's account: "On Monday morning, nineteenth, I drove to Washington, went into the Executive Office Building [at the White House] and visited my office. As far as I could see, it had not been entered since my last visit. The safe was still in place, and the few papers on my desk were undisturbed. The morning newspaper had carried my name prominently."
  
• Meanwhile, at Langley, CIA Director Richard Helms is arriving for work. Here's his account from sworn testimony: "On Monday, when I came to the office, there'd been no mention in the papers of Mr. Hunt. So I got ahold of Mr. Osborn [CIA Security Director] and said, 'How come you told me that Mr. Hunt was involved with this?' And he said, 'Well, there were some papers found in the hotel room, or one of the hotel rooms, with Hunt's name on it, and it looks as though he was somewhere in the area when the break-in took place.' So I said, 'All right.'" [NOTE: See How Helms Supposedly Learned About the "Break-In" for Helms's absurd self-contradicting accounts.]
  
• Meanwhile, back at Hunt's White House office, still early hours of the business morning, Hunt "goes through the contents" of the safe. He then simply closes it back up, and goes downstairs to find Charles "Chuck" Colson, who conveniently is not in his office, though Colson's secretary, Joan Hall, is. Hunt purportedly says to her: "There's one thing I want to tell you, and you can pass it along to Chuck. That safe of mine upstairs is loaded." To which Joan Hall purportedly responds: "I sort of thought it might be."
  

While loathe to insult anyone's intelligence, I, personally, have yet to see any clear statement of the following observations of the obvious made in any of the tonnage of literature surrounding Watergate:

First, note the obvious contradictions about the newspaper(s) carrying Hunt's name.

Second, Hunt has just given Colson plausible deniability for anything that follows in relationship to the safe, even though Colson's own secretary, Joan Hall, has had the combination to Hunt's safe for almost a year—since 7 July 1971—which Colson has known. The Secret Service also has the combination, having set it as a custom combination the day Hunt was "hired" by Colson, a fact that later in the day will weave itself into more manufactured fiction.

Furthermore, there has not been and is not anything preventing E. Howard Hunt from calling Colson and telling him directly about the contents of the safe (most of which Colson purportedly already knows, anyway). For a frame-up of the White House, though, Hunt has to give this crucial, pivotal message only to Colson's secretary and not to Colson himself. This allows Colson to play a completely asinine and obviously phony (but obviously complicit) role during the rest of the day.

It also must be noted that this is Hunt's gratuitous salt in the thousand razor cuts he already has inflicted: a second trip back to his safe after originally having planted the electronics "evidence," this time only to look over its contents and close it back up. This is Hunt's third trip to the White House safe in just a little over 48 hours. There are shredders everywhere. There are burn bags everywhere. The deadly purported (though non-existent) "fabricated Diem cables"—which supposedly have been collecting dust for eight months in Hunt's safe—could be completely eradicated from existence in less than a minute (if they ever had existed at all), and with no effort. But Hunt doesn't bother. Why? First, obviously, because they don't exist. In the scripted fiction of this CIA black op, though, they exist. And this overlay of fiction on the real world has to be left there "in the safe" in order to frame the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during time of war with the knowing collusion of John Dean and L. Patrick Gray. There is no other conceivable or manufacturable reason for Hunt's actions in this staged play. It is sheer sadism.

Continuing with the events of the same day, the sequence of events for the rest of Monday, 19 June 1972 is of paramount importance, but the sequence is impossible to reconcile because of the gross contradictions contained in the various accounts, as soon will be seen.

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• E. Howard Hunt leaves his safe "loaded," and crosses the street to his Mullen office. According to Hunt, Robert "Bob" Bennett comes in a short time later, commenting that "the papers seemed to be full of" Hunt's name. According to Bennett's testimony, this is "9:00, 9:15" in the morning.
  
• Sometime "in the morning or early afternoon," John Ehrlichman tells John Dean to look into the question of White House involvement in the break-in at the DNC and to determine Howard Hunt's White House employment status. Dean supposedly goes and speaks to Charles Colson regarding Colson's knowledge of the break-in and Hunt's status. Colson denies any knowledge of the event, but expresses "concern over the contents of Hunt's safe." [NOTE: This vague "concern" implies all sorts of possibilities, which is the only thing it is supposed to do.] Dean then purportedly speaks to Liddy.
  
• According to Liddy, "about 11:00 a.m." he gets a message to call John Dean, who wants to see Liddy in Dean's office. Liddy goes to the White House Executive Office Building (EOB) and finds Dean waiting in the hall outside Dean's office. Dean says, "Let's go for a walk." They cross 17th Street and go into a park, where Liddy purportedly tells Dean about the break-in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, and purportedly advises Dean to try to get hold of the FBI's FD-302 forms and "Airtels" (a type of FBI report) on the investigation. Purportedly, only on hearing of the Ellsberg psychiatrist office op does Dean decide on the spot to tell Liddy to tell Hunt to leave the country. They part, and Dean returns to the White House. Liddy returns to his own office at CREEP HQ to contact Hunt.
  
• John Dean purportedly speaks to unidentified "law enforcement officials," then reports to John Ehrlicman that "the matter went beyond the five persons who were apprehended, that Liddy was involved, and that there was a further direct involvement of the CRP."
  

Although it may not seem like it, we already are in separate time streams, which I have to take up in a moment.

First, though, for those familiar with Watergate, it will be immediately apparent—at least according to Liddy—that CIA has already injected every drop of the slow-acting, time-released deadly poison into the Presidency that will murder it. Hunt's safe is "loaded" and double-checked. Dean has been supplied by Liddy a "plausible reason" to negotiate secretly with L. Patrick Gray for the FBI investigation documents. Dean has been "told" about the Ellsberg psychiatrist op. And from Part I of this series, Alfred Baldwin has already planted more incriminating "evidence" against the White House at James McCord's home. Every element is in place that is needed to destroy the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during wartime.

But the entire day requires an impossible number of irreconcilable "time streams," some of which we haven't yet encountered. I'm already forced to list them, though. They are:

1. E. Howard Hunt's time stream
   
2. G. Gordon Liddy's time stream
   
3. Robert Bennet's time stream
   
4. John Dean's time stream
   
5. The Judiciary Committee's time stream
   
6. Charles Colson's time stream
   
7. Bruce Kehrli's time stream
   
8. Fred Fielding's time stream [Fielding is "former" NSA]
   

At this exact point we enter such a maelstrom of conflicting stories that reconciliation in terms of time and sequence is completely impossible.

Here are the disastrously contrary accounts:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• According to CIA's Robert Bennett, head of the Mullen CIA front company, he leaves for lunch at a time in the morning that can be no later than about 11:30 a.m. He purportedly is joined on the elevator by E. Howard Hunt, who says he is going to his oculist in Rockville, Maryland, to get his glasses.
  
• According to CIA's E. Howard Hunt, he receives a phone call at his Mullen office from G. Gordon Liddy at "about 11:30," and Liddy tells him to leave the office and walk west on Pennsylvania Avenue, which he does.
  
• According to G. Gordon Liddy, he calls Hunt "a little after noon" and finds Hunt in his Mullen office, and tells Hunt to "turn left (which is east) on the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue" and keep walking, which Hunt supposedly does.
  
• According to CIA's Robert Bennett, he returns to the Mullen office from lunch "around noon," and two FBI agents are there wanting to see Hunt, but Hunt is not there. The FBI agents go away.
  
• Meanwhile, somewhere in all this warped time, Hunt supposedly encounters Liddy standing on a street corner pretending to read a newspaper. They walk together. According to both their accounts, Liddy tells Hunt: "'They' want you to get out of town." Hunt says he'll get out of town, and he and Liddy part.
  
• According to Hunt, he walks back to Mullen and goes to Bob Bennett's office just as Bennett is getting ready to leave for lunch. [Cue Twilight Zone music.] Purportedly, Hunt tells Bennett that he will be "leaving town for a little while," and Bennett just nods wordlessly. [somehow, Bennett must believe that Hunt has driven to Rockville, Maryland, seen his oculist, and driven back. But, no: that was told to Bennett on the elevator on his way out to lunch, and he hasn't left yet. No, that was— Never mind. Actually, Bennett is going to claim that Hunt came back to the offices "later in the afternoon," at a time when, according to Hunt, Hunt is on a plane to New York. But we haven't gotten there yet on any one of the time streams.]
  
• Depending on whose time continuum you're trying to live in, it's either about 11:30 a.m. (Bennett leaving for lunch) or about 12:15 to 12:30 p.m. (Liddy time). Either way, Hunt leaves the Mullen office to go home and pack (according to Hunt) and doesn't come back that day.
  
• According to Liddy, he gets a call from John Dean about 40-45 minutes after his meeting with Hunt on the street. (This would make it right around 1:00 p.m.—Liddy Time) Dean purportedly tells Liddy that Ehrlichman has said to cancel the message to Hunt to leave town. [Ehrlichman has sworn he never issued any such order in the first place.] Liddy claims that he immediately calls Mullen offices, but is told Hunt isn't there. So Liddy immediately calls Hunt's home—and Hunt is there!
  
• According to Hunt, he is home packing a bag "half an hour" after telling Bennett that he (Hunt) is leaving town when the phone rings and it is Liddy. (No way to compute this on Hunt Time or Bennett Time.) In both accounts (Hunt's and Liddy's), Liddy purportedly tells Hunt that the order has been rescinded: Hunt doesn't have to leave town. Hunt decides he's going to New York anyway and tells Liddy.
  

If you've made it across that triple-curved time warp, let's pause, shall we, for a breath, and find a real clock to look at in order to get re-settled into real-world time. It's only going to get worse.

We're about to enter one or more critical White House meetings concerning Hunt and his White House status, but it is impossible to know the actual number of such meetings or who was in attendance because the testimony conflicts on this matter, too. (See section, "THE PLURAL/SINGULAR MIND SPINNER" in the article CIA Psy-Ops of Watergate and Beyond.)

Below is the account from the Judiciary Committee "Statement of Information," followed by a statement submitted by Charles Colson.

Be aware, when attempting to get through it, that the "call to" or "clandestine meeting with" Liddy (take your pick) supposedly already has taken place, but in either case, we at this point in "time" are given to understand that Dean has already sent out the message via Liddy for Hunt to blow town. The bad news is that according to the Judiciary Committee's version, Dean is just now about to call Liddy from a White House meeting to deliver that message, and it is now "during the afternoon." Strap in:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• At an unspecified time "during the afternoon," and "immediately before" a White House meeting involving John Dean and others concerning E. Howard Hunt's White House status, John Dean purportedly calls G. Gordon Liddy and tells him on the phone to advise Hunt that "they" want Hunt to "leave the country." [NOTE: According to Dean, this was on Ehrichman's instructions. According to Ehrlichman, he never issued any such instructions.]
  
• At an unspecified time "during the afternoon" (supposedly immediately after John Dean's call to Liddy to tell Hunt to leave the country), John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, John Dean, Bruce Kehrli (Staff Assistant to H. R. Haldeman), and Ken Clawson (White House Deputy Director of Communications) meet in Ehrlichman's office and discuss E. Howard Hunt's "White House employment status." Colson states that Hunt "should have been terminated as a White House consultant as of March 31, 1972." Bruce Kehrli is asked to bring Hunt's employment records to Ehrlichman's office. Kehrli fetches Hunt's employment records. The records do not indicate that Hunt's consultant status had been terminated. John Ehrlichman instructs that Howard Hunt's EOB safe should be opened in the presence of John Dean, Bruce Kehrli and a Secret Service Agent, and that Dean should take possession of the contents. Charles Colson says that this "should be done immediately."
  
• Charles Colson's statement: "We learned—to my surprise—that Mr. Hunt still maintained a safe in an office in the Executive Office Building. I suggested to Dean that he take custody of the safe. I was certain in my own mind that there would be an investigation if the facts established that Hunt had had any connection with the Watergate break-in. It was my view that the White House counsel had a responsibility to secure the safe and any other evidence. Contrary to Mr. Dean' s testimony, I had had no communications from Hunt over that weekend; no one suggested that I remove anything from the safe. I never saw the safe, nor was I aware of the contents of the safe."
  

Have you been able to keep track of how many different time streams you've been required to travel in "simultaneously"?

Note that according to Liddy Time and Hunt Time, this meeting above had to have begun shortly after 11:30 a.m., after Dean got back from his purported clandestine meeting with Liddy. But Dean testifies under oath that he told Liddy the "get Hunt out of town" message in a phone call, and the Judiciary Committee's "Statement of Information" claims that the phone call from Dean was "immediately before" the meeting cited above—which is described as happening "during the afternoon."

Now we get treated to Bruce Kehrli's story:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• According to Bruce Kehrli's deposition, he is instructed by John Dean to go to Hunt's White House office "at about 2:00 o'clock" in the afternoon. He says he is just asked "to go the office and see if there were any materials or papers left and clean them out." Kehrli claims that this was "immediately after" his "discussions with Mr. Dean." Then Kehrli goes on to claim: "I checked to find only stationery and other things of that nature in the desk but found a safe in the office. I had put the stationery in a large box and had it removed to a room in EOB, Executive Office Building. I had the safe taken to that same area." Kehrli then claims that he checks "with the GSA representative and with the Secret Service representative to see if they had a combination for the safe," and is told they do not. So Kehrli purportedly asks them to open the safe and "to give me a call because John Dean had said he wanted to be there when the safe was opened." Kehrli leaves to wait for a call.
  

So Kehrli claims he just happened across a safe in E. Howard Hunt's office while he was there collecting stationery. Bruce Kehrli is a bare-faced xxxx. Supposedly on his own decision, Kehrli has White House General Services Administration (GSA) grunts move the safe out of Hunt's office to a GSA store room. As for the combination, Hunt has stated emphatically that the Secret Service set a custom combination on the safe the day he was "hired," which they had on record, with a copy having been given to Colson's secretary, Joan Hall.

So Kehrli's entire story only conflicts with everything ever recorded in the known universe about Hunt's safe. And now the safe has been moved to a store room and won't be heard from again for hours, so God only knows what was done to it, or even if, when it reappears, it is the same safe.

As for the fate of Ms. Hall, she must have been abducted by aliens right after Hunt purportedly told her early in the morning, "That safe of mine upstairs is loaded." She is never seen or heard from the entire day.

You may be ready to give up entirely right now—or throw up. Realize that this is simply the intended effect of the CIA mind poison.

It's about to get worse: Dean says that the purported phone call to Liddy to tell Hunt to get out of the country was made during a second meeting "later that afternoon" in Ehrlichman's office, with only Colson attending. I'm sorry to have sprung this "second meeting" on you like this, but there was no possible way to factor it into any of the events above.

May as well dive into John Dean's time stream now:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• John Dean's testimony: "Later that afternoon I attended a second meeting in Ehrlichman's office with Colson. I recall Ehrlichman asking where Hunt was. I said I had no idea and Colson made a similar statement. At that point— before the meeting had started, Ehrlichman instructed me to call Liddy to have him tell Hunt to get out of the country. I did this without even thinking. Shortly after I made the call, however, I realized that no one in the White House should give such an instruction and raised the matter. A brief discussion ensued between Ehrlichman and myself. As I recall, Ehrlichman said that he was not a fugitive from justice, so why not. I said that I did not think it was very wise. At this point, Colson chimed in that he also thought it unwise and Ehrlichman agreed. I immediately called Liddy again to retract the request, but he informed me that he had already passed the message and it might be too late to retract. Following this brief telephone skirmish regarding Hunt's travel plans, the meeting turned to Hunt's status at the White House. ...Ehrlichman called Mr. Bruce Kehrli and requested that he bring Hunt's personnel records up to Ehrlichman's office. Before Kehrli arrived, Colson raised the matter of Hunt's safe. Colson, without getting specific, said it was imperative that someone get the contents of Hunt's safe. Colson suggested, and Ehrlichman concurred, that I take custody of the contents of the safe."
  

So this isn't the "big meeting" at all: this is a purported "small meeting" with only Dean, Ehrlichman, and Colson. Cozy.

Dean says that Kehrli was not at any meeting at all where Kehrli fetched Hunt's records, but was called by Ehrlichman to fetch them. The rest of the idiotic contradictions, I have to let you try to untangle by yourself, because there are miles to go on this impossible day before anybody sleeps.

In fact, right now we have to leap out of John Dean's time stream into first E. Howard Hunt's, then into Robert Bennett's, because now it's that "time" of the afternoon in one or more of these time streams:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  
• According to E. Howard Hunt, in "midafternoon" his children return to the house (presumably from school) and Hunt asks them to drive him to the airport, which they do. Hunt gets the "last seat on the New York-bound flight."
  
• According to Robert Bennett, Hunt comes back into the office sometime later in the afternoon (at a time that only can be before 3:30 or 4:00, Bennett Time, presumably "returning from the oculist"), and Bennett tells Hunt that FBI agents have been there looking for him. (Hunt, in all of his accounts and testimony, says nothing about this, ever, anywhere.) Hunt then leaves Mullen, according to Bennett, saying he's going home to pack and leaving town, and doesn't come back.
  
• And here's even more Bennett—if, like me, you just can't get enough—trying to synchronize his lies with the others about Liddy trying to tell Hunt he doesn't have to leave the country: Bennett claims that Liddy calls the Mullen offices "late in the afternoon" around "3:30 or 4:00 o'clock" looking for Hunt, and Bennett tells Liddy that Hunt has gone home to pack and leave town. Liddy purportedly tells Bennett to contact Hunt and "tell him that the signals have changed and he's to stay put." According to Bennett, he calls Hunt at home and delivers the message, and Hunt says to Bennett, "I wish they'd make up their minds."
  

I sure wish somebody would.

It might be a good time to take the dog for a walk right about here, or hug your children or a loved one, and experience real life in any way you can as an antidote for this CIA mind poison. There is a real universe around you, actual time, actual mass and energy—not just this phony, impossible CIA-created universe.

When you're ready and able, we're about to cut to the chase and get right to the Magical Grand Opening of Hunt's safe, and there are even more thrills ahead.

Who do you think might be involved in this religious event that will turn out, ultimately, to be a bloodless coup, overthrowing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States?

Whatever you think you know, it's probably wrong. There are only two lowly characters written into this CIA-scripted scene, and a couple of faceless extras. Who are these characters?

Well, let's call them the Rosiepantz and Gushiestern of Watergate: Bruce (yes, Bruce) Kehrli and Fred Fielding, "formerly" with NSA. And here, literally "at the end of the day," they are left alone on the stage to play out this little drama. That's right: John Dean has left the building. Charles Colson has left the building. All the stars are gone. Maybe they were abducted by the same aliens that took Colson's secretery Joan Hall. Nobody says. Nobody asks. Just Rosiepantz and Gushiestern are left alone on the stage to play the scene.

And that's how I'm going to present this next-to-last scene on the unforgettable day of 19 June 1972: as a script composed entirely of excerpts of their deposition testimony and actual questions asked in the depositions. Why? Because I can. I've added some perfectly meaningless "filler" in italics. Why? Because I can.

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  The time, on some time stream, has to be around 5:30 in the evening, three hours after Mr. Kehrli had left GSA grunts toiling with Hunt's safe (or some safe) in a store room on the fifth floor of the EOB. The scene opens with a phone call to Mr. Kehrli, who, according to later revleations, already is at home when the phone rings:
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: I got a call, let's see at about— it was early evening, from one of the— I think it was the FBI agent. When the safe was opened they had a Secret Service agent there and the fellow actually opened the safe. They had people to protect themselves against any problems, things missing out of the safe.
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: I knew that Mr. Kehrli had come in from his home upon advice that the safe was open...
  DISEMBODIED QUESTIONER: Do you know who the Secret Service agent was?
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Baker, as I remember. He called and said, "We have opened the safe. There is a gun in the safe. You better come up and take a look at it." So at that point I tried to reach Mr. Dean. I was unable to reach him and reached Mr. Fielding...
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: I was in my office working sometime around 7:00 o'clock. I got a phone call from Mr. Kehrli, who was trying to reach Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean was not in the office at the time. I tried to reach him and couldn't. Mr. Kehrli advised me that they had Mr. Hunt's safe in this room, 522, and it had been drilled and that Mr. Dean had asked that he be present when the safe was opened. I then tried to find Mr. Dean and could not, and I knew that Mr. Kehrli had come in from his home upon advice that the safe was open, so I said, "Well, if Mr. Dean wants somebody to be up there, I'll come up there." That's how I ended up in Room 522.
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Well! He didn't ask for your diary!
  DISEMBODIED QUESTIONER: [To Fred Fielding] Approximately what time was this?
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: I would say it was approximately 7:30. 7:30 to 8:00 o'clock in the evening.
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Mr. Fielding and we went up. We both arrived. It took me a couple of hours to track down Fielding and we went up there I think around 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock. At that point—
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: When I arrived there, Mr. Bruce Kehrli, who was at that time a staff secretary at the White House office, was present. A GSA rerresentative, I believe, was in the hallway and, to the best of my recollection, there was a Secret Service agent present. There was a safe in that room which had just been drilled by a team of people from one of the safe companies.
  DISEMBODIED QUESTIONER: [To Kehrli] Were you there before he [Mr. Fielding] was?
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: No.
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: You bitch! I just said you were!
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Well, why did you leave out the FBI agent, you bimbo? You know we're supposed to say "FBI agent" and you just have to—
  DISEMBODIED QUESTIONER: You got there at the same time?
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Approximately the same time. I think we may have seen each other coming down the hall toward the safe. I don't really remember at this point but it was approximately the same time—
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: Oh. My. God!
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: From there the GSA or the fellow who opened the safe and the Secret Service agent left. We took the material out of the safe, put it in a couple of boxes that we had there, called GSA people to come up and take it from there to my office because that was the most secure area there.
  NSA'S FRED "GUSHIESTERN" FIELDING: Can't you keep anything straight?
  BRUCE "ROSIEPANTZ" KEHRLI: Straight! Look who's talking about "straight"! You weren't complaining about "straight"...
  

And as the curtain descends, the contents of Hunt's safe have been neatly tucked away in cardboard boxes and stored in Bruce "Rosiepantz" Kehrli's office to await the morning of Tuesday, 20 June 1972, and the pawing through by John Dean, Rosiepantz, and Gushiestern.

If only we could leave the day with this comic relief. But the curtain-ringer on this day is a much darker scene. It is one of the most bizarre and disturbing events surrounding Watergate—which is quite a mouthful—but it also is one of the most obscure. Even (or especially) the date of the event has been next to impossible to confirm—likely for very good reason—including two apparently phony dates in the Woodstein book. Finally, though, after cross-referencing every account available, the date was narrowed down to this most astounding day of days, Monday, 19 June 1972, by confirmation that on the following day—Tuesday, 20 June 1972—L. Patrick Gray is back in D.C. after his "trip to the West Coast."

So as the curtain rises for this last macabre scene, it is nighttime. The location is a motel at 1107 Jamboree Road in Newport Beach, California, variously referred to in differing accounts as the "Hyatt Newporter Hotel" and the "Newporter Inn."

The scene is through a scrim darkly. There are two motel rooms. one occupied by Acting Director of FBI, L. Patrick Gray—the man who recently has halted any further investigation of the shooting of presidential candidate George Wallace. The other is occupied by Martha Mitchell, wife of the former Attorney General John Mitchell, who is now head of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREP or CREEP). The curtain is raised:

• Monday, 19 June 1972 (Continued)
  Martha Mitchell is on a phone in the motel room to a UPI reporter: "I'm sick and tired of politics!" she is saying. "I gave John an ultimatum I would leave him if he didn't get out. I am a political prisoner! Politics is nothing but a cops and robbers game. I know dirty things. I saw dirty things. I am not going to stand for all those dirty tricks that go on! I am sick and tired of the whole operation—" Five men burst into the room, indistinct figures. One of them is the new "head of security" for CREEP, Steve King, replacing CIA's James McCord, who is in jail. King rips the phone cord from the wall, and Martha Mitchell is thrown down and held down on the bed while a "doctor" gives her an injection.
  

As her struggles end, the curtain slowly descends on Monday, 19 June 1972.

AFTERWORD ON MARTHA MITCHELL: The event is covered up, and by the time it breaks in the press, days later, it is diffused with vague and, apparently, even incorrect dates. Martha Mitchell essentially disappears for a period, to resurface after over a week at the Westchester Country Club in Westchester, New York. The Westchester Country Club is situated very close to a psychiatric clinic with CIA connections. She will show a bandaged hand and bruises and describe the motel incident, only to disappear again for quite some time. When she "returns" to the public eye, John Mitchell will have resigned, Martha Mitchell will have a $2 million dollar book deal, and she never wavers again from the "official story" of Watergate.

If you made it through just this first business day after the "arrests' at the Watergate, you are of special mettle.

That mettle hasn't even been tested yet, though. This is only the beginning of the CIA Watergate bait-and-switch.

There is much more to come. But to recap this day, and the first two articles in the series:

1. E. Howard Hunt has planted electronic "evidence" in his White House safe, checked it, and double checked it to make sure it's "loaded" for the CIA framing of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war.
   
2. E. Howard Hunt purportedly also has in his safe fabricated "Diem cables" to further frame the White House. They are "fabricated" all right: their very existence is pure fiction and nothing but. The fiction, though, will be made part of the lies of both John Dean and Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray as they set up CIA's bait-and-switch.
   
3. E. Howard Hunt has told Charles Colson's secretary, Joan Hall, that his safe is "loaded." She acknowledges this, and apparently then evaporates into thin air.
   
4. Alfred Baldwin has driven a van containing even more electronics equipment and planted that "evidence" at the home of James McCord, chief of security for the Committee to Re-Elect the President—who is in jail and has already identified himself as "former" CIA.
   
5. CIA mouthpieces Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post have set up the CIA-White House split on Watergate with James McCord, and planted tantalizing clues about a "sixth man," who they know to be "former" CIA agent E. Howard Hunt. They also have laid all the foundation for the coming CIA bait-and-switch with reference to certain $100 bills found on the arrested men.
   
6. Charles Colson has planted tantalizing but vague clues with "concerns" about the contents of Hunt's safe—suggesting Joan Hall might have sent him a message from beyond, and might not have—while also claiming to have been completely surprised to learn that Hunt has a safe at all at the White House, and to be absolutely not "aware of the contents of the safe."
   
7. E. Howard Hunt has left Washington, D.C. for New York.
   
8. Liddy has spent the weekend shredding everything he can find.
   
9. CIA sweetheart Robert Bennett has done the worst job of telling CIA lies for them probably in history. And that is an accomplishment.
   
10. Hunt's safe (or some safe) has been moved to a store room on the fifth floor of the EOB and dramtically drilled open—something that was completely unnecessary (even with Joan Hall's unexplained disappearance), since Secret Service had the combination. But it was required in the CIA script for making sensationalistic news copy to help frame the White House, and also gave John Dean and Charles Colson plenty of time to make themselves invisible.
    
11. After the entire day had been spent largely discussing the importance of E. Howard Hunt and his safe, John Dean and Charles Colson have managed to disappear just at the right time, so the opening of the safe can be attended by two lying twits, Bruce Kehrli and NSA's Fred Fielding.
    
12. Although the contents of Hunt's safe reportedly have been seen by safe drillers, at least one GSA staff person, a Secret Service agent, an anonymous FBI agent, and by both Kehrli and NSA's Fielding, not even one of these people will ever testify to having seen a single "forged cable."
    
13. Martha Mitchell has been silenced and relegated to CIA psychiatric "care."
    So here on just the first business day after the arrests, every single element of the CIA assault on the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is already in place. All the props are there. All personnel are in position.
    

All that's left is for the drama to be dragged out, and, in the process, for John Dean and L. Patrick Gray to perform the stunning bait-and-switch for the CIA that will take all attention off of the CIA and will overthrow the duly elected President of the United States of America. It won't just destroy a single President, though: it will forever weaken and compromise the Office of the President and will put CIA in the greatest position of control in its history with a top-secret program that it will run in complete darkness, behind the Presidency, behind every military campaign of the United States, for over twenty years.

To be continued in the next article:

PART III: The CIA Watergate Bait-And-Switch—20-25 June 1972

Ashton Gray

The following article began as a necessary set of caveats to the article, "The CIA Watergate Bait-and-Switch—19 June 1972," Part II of a series of related articles on how John Dean and L. Patrick Gray helped the CIA frame the White House.

I started out attempting in the articles themselves to explain the CIA black psy-ops techniques integral to the fraud they perpetrated, but it became so unwieldy that the only solution was to break these caveats out into this separate article.

This has no pretensions to being any exhaustive study of such black mental techniques. It merely outlines major ones used in the packaging and selling of a CIA fraud of remarkable scope known as "Watergate." That said, these same techniques will be found, when looked for, in other purported but manufactured black op "histories," or wherever there is an attempt to hide the truth of past events with malign fictions.

HISTORY BY MANUFACTURED CONFUSION

What is commonly known as "Watergate" is largely a false "universe" of purported history made up of some truth and a great many lies. It is an infinitely elastic universe, because it can't possibly exist except in each individual perceiver's mind. Once the volunteered "confessions" and accounts and testimony are closely compared, so many contradictions emerge that in order for much of "Watergate" to have happened at all, a universe with multiple time streams is required.

These contradictions (and, importantly, omissions of truth) aren't the result of mere "misperceptions" by different eyewitnesses: these are cooked, manufactured fictions by people supposedly "confessing" their roles, and their accounts—and even staged "events"—contain specific known elements of psy-ops that are planted for no other purpose than to confuse, and, by confusing, to deflect close inspection and comparison that would reveal the lies.

CONTRADICTIONS TO CREATE CONFUSION

A time-honored and favorite technique for creating confusion is to have two separate and completely contradictory accounts of what purportedly is the same event. The mind locks. It cannot be resolved. No certain truth can be reached at that point in "time" because both contradictory accounts cannot be true. The mind is forced to make a choice between two accounts that might both be false, or to leave it entirely unresolved and still attempt to link that enduring mystery to other claimed or actual events that depend on it or take place around it. "Watergate" is a mine field of such mental traps.

CONTRADICTION BY MULTIPLE SOURCES: THE COMMONALITIES

One frequently used technique to spread a tremendous amount of confusion is to supply seemingly "plausible" accounts of the "same" events through different sources, with the varying accounts originating at different times and places. Each of the divergent accounts has certain major commonly agreed-upon or sometimes true components. These are crucial to the fraud. The perceiver's mind latches onto these common components they've heard about from "multiple sources," and attempts to synthesize those together into a cohesive whole, no matter how many details are at variance and odds with each other. The hopelessly contradictory details most often are overlooked entirely. That factor alone is the key to the success of the fraud.

That's the way "Watergate" was packaged. To hear one participant's testimony, it makes "sense." To read another's book, it makes "sense." The mind constructs a mental "universe" in which all these things are able to take place, and in which time not only is completely elastic, but even can be, and often must be, subconsciously subdivided into entirely separate parallel, but unsynchronized, time streams.

THE MANIPULATION OF TIME

What the human imagination can do with time is infinite. When presented, as in "Watergate," with multiple seemingly consistent but actually contradictory accounts and stories from multiple sources—each of which purports to be "fact"—the perceiver's mind can, and will, subconsciously create parallel time streams—like a railroad track suddenly splitting off into four or six different tracks, each regulated with a different clock, those then merging again somehow at the commonalities, then splitting again, and so on.

This gets so absurd in "Watergate" that when exposed it can't help but be funny, even with the realization that the CIA operation was an act Treason.

Only a very careful and detailed comparison of all the accounts side-by-side, on one and only one time stream—the one governed by the motion of heavenly bodies and measured by clocks—reveals that no such set of events possibly could have taken place in the universe we all agree upon and know of as "objective reality." Law enforcement now uses this investigative tool of creating a timeline regularly, though inexactly.

If there is any one tool most effective in deconstructing such false and willfully fraudulent "histories" as Watergate it is a meticulously detailed timeline into which all accounts by the actors are recorded. False "facts" then become starkly apparent. Its importance can't be overstated, and it is the single most neglected and misused tool of investigative research.

FALSEHOODS AND OMISSIONS

Two major building blocks of entirely false "histories" are falsehoods and omissions.

Through the use of a very exacting timeline, the most blatant falsehoods can be located with relative ease. Once that's done, more subtle falsehoods inevitably emerge, since they are necessary to the greater ones. By that stripping away of layers of falsity, omissions begin to emerge, the most obvious ones being the omission of whatever truth the lies were invented to conceal.

Omissions are their own subject. Inevitably, where a false "reality" is being created to supplant or cover up the truth, many small omissions will be scattered throughout. They are very difficult to perceive, because they are not there. This sounds obvious, but it is almost always missed. (This is the irony of describing "nothing.") People fail to look for what should be there—but isn't. They merely accept what is supplied (even when what is supplied is false), and create their own "explanations" to fill in the gaps. Life abhors a vacuum. It is very difficult for life to perceive a vacuum, an absence, a "not there," so life tends to fill the gap, often subconsciously. It takes practice to look for omissions. Some people find it next to impossible, so automatic and instant is their construction of "reasonable explanations" for entirely unreasonable circumstances, whether those be falsehoods or, commonly, omissions.

Thus researchers and analysts and writers playing the popular indoor sport of "connect the dots" with Watergate (and many other such "events" in history) often have been only connecting a considerable amount of fiction with very little verifiable fact, building mental "bridges" to span the gaps. Often they have attempted to do this over considerable yawning chasms, and hence a flood of "theories" attempting to bridge the gaps and resolve the contradictions. Results and conclusions of such methods inevitably are false in varying degrees, and, however "interesting," are ultimately unsatisfactory, since people by and large have a sense on some level of when they have been denied the truth.

THE PLURAL/SINGULAR MIND SPINNER

A subset of falsehoods, this is a black ops technique used like repeated blows of a blunt instrument to the head all throughout "Watergate" and its "testimony." It is used over and over and over to confound and confuse, but is so subtle as almost to escape notice entirely.

The basic technique is to keep changing the singular/plural reference to "things" that play a role, often "things" that never had any existence at all.

It is used in the number of "bugs" supposedly planted in the Watergate, when there were none at all. It is used by Hunt and Douglas Caddy in the number of partners of Caddy's law firm supposedly contacted by Caddy. It is used by Baldwin in referring to the number of receiving "units" in the Howard Johnson's rooms. It is used in the number of Howard Johnson's rooms. It is used by Alfred Baldwin in the number of "logs" he purportedly hand-delivered to CREP headquarters (the real number is zero). And it is used by John Dean, L. Patrick Gray, Charles Colson, and E. Howard Hunt in their "Diem cables" fraud.

It is sheer hell on the mind. It keeps it in a constant state of uncertainty at a very low level of awareness, and it is almost never noticed by anybody unless this black psy-ops technique is known as a well-trained black operation to help keep things in a state of constant confusion. That is its purpose.

THE PRINCIPLE OF DUPLICATES

This is a caveat regarding a very deadly psy-op technique that was warned about in the articles on the entirely fictional "fabricated Diem cables": the psy-op principle of planting near-duplicates as a method of creating enormous confusion.

Certainly, life can and does produce "coincidences" of seeming similarity. But there is a knowing malefic use of this phenomenon that is done solely to confuse. It has been called a "burdensome fog" by John Gillespie.

One vicious example in "Watergate" is the purported "logs" of wiretaps. The stories of the co-conspirators allude to two complete (but entirely fictional) sets of these "logs": one set supposedly made by Alfred Baldwin, another by G. Gordon Liddy that purportedly was created to "fix" Baldwin's set—which never existed in the first place. (Notice the constant need to "fix" something.) None were ever made by Alfred Baldwin at all. The "logs" created by Liddy were actually just scripts supplied to him via CIA that he dictated himself and handed to his secretary to type. Then even those were destroyed by Liddy after they had been used briefly as nothing more than stage props to make people believe that wiretaps had existed. Fiction leaves no paper trail.

Something almost never even noticed is that the phony Ellsberg psychatrist "break-in" and the later purported but entirely fictional "first break-in" at the Watergate are written to be extremely similar: both over holiday weekends, both using many of the same personnel, both having "walkie-talkie problems," both failing to accomplish their purported (entirely false) "objectives," and many more close similarities that one can count once the black psy-op technique to generate confusion is known.

Another critical example is John Dean's assistant, Fred Fielding, whose last-name counterpart, Dr. Louis Fielding, is so important in the "Pentagon Papers" fraud, itself merely the opening act in the greater CIA fraud. It is no accident at all that Dean was supplied with an "assistant" whose last name was Fielding. Both "Fieldings" are linked to the activities of E. Howard Hunt in crucial ways. In some of the testimony, particularly Dean's, only the last name is used repeatedly. This is a trained technique used repeatedly for maximum destruction. It is tantamount to a stun grenade every place it is used. It scatters attention off on two different "tracks" widely separated in time: in this case the "Dr. Fielding" CIA op of early September 1971, and the "Fred Fielding" involvement in the other CIA op, the fraud of the "Diem cables." The complexity of this black "Fielding" operation alone, and how time was maliciously manipulated with it, is going to be the subject of a separate article.

For now, suffice it to say that John Dean is the person whose role it was to make the "revelations" of both of these devastating CIA fraudulent operations, both involving "Fieldings" and E. Howard Hunt in some crucial way, and Dean did it when he had maximum world exposure: in the Senate Watergate hearings. Both of these "revelations" and "confessions" by Dean had world-shaking consequences, and if you think for a moment that the seeding of "Fieldings" into both of these catastrophic "confessions" is an accident, do us both a favor and don't ever read another syllable of anything I've written.

I'll end this section by saying that someone in these forums might want to ask Douglas Caddy just what he knows about the circumstances of Fred Fielding's "hiring" as John Dean's assistant. I won't be asking him. I don't need to.

CLOSED DOORS AND CLANDESTINE INTERACTION

A psy-op technique heavily relied upon in "Watergate" to create the conflicts and fictions described generally above is alleged private, secret talks and meetings and activities between two (or a few) of the principal actors, with nothing more than their own assertions of what the subject and substance of such an interaction was. An almost inconceivable amount of what we know as "Watergate" is built on no more foundation, and it is no foundation at all. It often is pure fiction.

In most instances where we literally are forced to rely on the accounts of a small number of the co-conspirators interacting, one of more of the persons involved has known CIA background, connections, clearances, employment, or all four. The Watergate literature is so strewn with one-on-one encounters that the exceptions are easier to count than the instances.

All of the people involved in these countless clandestine interactions have been solidly documented as having told knowing, willful lies, even under oath, about these same events. Therefore, it is of an importance that cannot be overstated to recognize, in each instance where a private meeting or phone call purportedly takes place between two criminal co-conspirators, that the only thing that can be known with any relative certainty is that such an interchange took place.

Worse than that, there are very important places in the record where close inspection and comparison leads to the only reasonable conclusion that even the claim of such two-party (or more) interaction is itself a completely manufactured fiction, never mind any claimed "substance" or subject.

One startlingly elaborate example is the entirely manufactured and fictional Watergate "first break-in" and its two-week aftermath. It involves seven people over three days of whole-cloth fiction. Layered on that is even more fiction consisting of a set of "events" that never happened at all, but is superimposed over the real events of two weeks in June 1972.

HIDDEN COMMUNICATIONS

The entire Intelligence Cult relies almost exclusively on hidden communications. This article has dealt with only a small facet of this, one used to manufacture fictions in complete secret for public performance and dissemination. A far more deadly facet is that wherever these filthy, lying vermin are at work in the walls, the real-universe truth of what is being done (and has been done) lies only hidden inside heavily fortified communication systems exclusive to the Intelligence Cult.

For decades their carte noir wall of secrecy has been "national security." The National Security Act of 1947 and its allied counterparts created the largest and most powerful organization of unprincipled criminals the world has ever known and gave them an almost unlimited budget and almost unlimited control over world affairs. It arguably was the culmination of mankind's cumulative stupidity. The Act almost unquestionably was an act of social suicide for the civilizations of man, and the slow-acting but very deadly poison still races unseen today through the most vital organs of civilization. It has almost done its job.

If no antidote is administered soon, the world as we know it is likely to die by its own hand.

SUMMARY

As stated in the introductory matter, this article is merely an outline of some of the more deadly techniques used by CIA and its murderous sisters in its black ops against mankind. My hope is that this article will be amended and expanded by others so mankind can begin to catalog the arsenal of deadly weapons being used against it by these criminals on a daily basis.

It is an act of self-preservation for mankind, and probably the only hope it has left, for these techniques are not relegated to historical frauds like the "Pentagon Papers" and "Watergate": the daily news you're getting right this instant is filled with these same black ops.

These are the techniques used right now, today, to keep the world in the exact state of turmoil and war and conflict that justifies the existence of this gang of amoral murdering, lying thugs and their obscene budgets. They create, continually, the "need" for their "services" in a self-feeding frenzy of self-serving world annihilation.

This is the snake consuming itself, and it has no conscience or compunctions about consuming every last one of us in the process.

Ashton Gray

UNITED STATES v. GEORGE GORDON LIDDY

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

509 F.2d 428

Before: BAZELON, Chief Judge, WRIGHT, McGOWAN, LEVENTHAL, ROBINSON, MacKINNON, and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, sitting en banc.

LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge.

...On direct examination, attorney Michael Douglas Caddy testified as follows: At approximately 3:40 a.m. Saturday morning, June 17, 1972, Howard Hunt arrived at his apartment and arranged with him to secure counsel for the five men arrested in the Democratic National Committee’s offices an hour and a half earlier.

Hm. That was your sworn testimony, eh? Now, that's odd. "An hour and a half earlier" from "approximately 3:40 a.m." would be approximately 2:-00-2:10 a.m. And in his autobiography, Hunt said he placed his call to you at precisely "0213." That's 2:13 a.m. But when you quoted that section from Hunt's autobiography in your professional victim article in The Advocate, you changed the time that Hunt had written. You changed it to "3:13 a.m."

And, for reasons I can't quite figure out, you omitted this section from the same Court of Appeals ruling:

• At about 3 a.m. Hunt arrived at room 723 with a walkie talkie and used the telephone to call an attorney, Michael Douglas Caddy. Caddy's testimony established that about a half hour after this phone call, Hunt visited Caddy's apartment.
  

Weird "Moebius Time" things happening all up in there, huh? Especially since Hunt says in his autobiography that— Well, here: let me just quote it from your own article, where you quote Hunt about one of these "historical events":

• DOUGLAS CADDY QUOTING E. HOWARD HUNT
  "From there I drove to the White House annex--the old Executive Office Building, in bygone years the War Department and later the Department of State.
  "Carrying three heavy attache cases, I entered the Pennsylvania Avenue door, showed my blue-and-white White House pass to the uniformed guards, and took the elevator to the third floor. I unlocked the door of 338 and went in. I opened my two-drawer safe, took out my operational handbook, found a telephone number and dialed it.
  "The time was 3:13 [NOTE: Hunt said in his autobiography it was 0213; Caddy changed it] in the morning of June 17, 1972, and the five of my companions had been arrested and taken to the maximum-security block of the District of Columbia jail. I had recruited four of them and it was my responsibility to get them out. That was the sole focus of my thoughts as I began talking on the telephone.
  "But with those five arrests the Watergate affair had begun...
  "After several rings the call was answered and I heard the sleepy voice of Douglas Caddy. 'Yes?'
  "'Doug? This is Howard. I hate to wake you up, but I've got a tough situation and I need to talk to you. Can I come over?'
  "'Sure. I'll tell the desk clerk you're expected.'"
  

Oh! The drama! And the nobility of E. Howard Hunt, thinking only of his mates! (God, that just gives new meaning to "hack writing," doesn't it, Doug? It reads like "The Hardy Boys Go To Washington." No, I repent: that's a brutal thing to say about good Hardy Boys literature.)

But let's get past Hunt's prosaic mayhem, and help me out, would you? I'm trying to figure this out now: comparing all this would mean that the two of you—that's you and Hunt—told one story under oath, but you both tell an entirely different story when you write for books and magazines.

Do I have this right? (Remember, I'm just a lay guy, not a sharp lawyer, so cut me a little slack if I got it wrong, okay?)

If not, what's the truth? All that up there can't be true. Without using the "L" word, somebody up in there is euphemising their ass off.

And speaking of which, did you actually get woken up by Hunt at 2:13 or 3:13 a.m. (take your pick), calling either from room 723 of the Howard Johnson's or from his office at the White House (take your pick), him saying nothing but that he wanted to drop by because of a "tough situation," and did you actually just say, sure, come on up? Was the fact of a CIA guy wanting to drop by at 2:00 or 3:00 a.m., like, no big deal or something?

If not, I guess we'll have to go with the Mrs. Barker story you told the Washington Post (well, one of the stories you've told): a completely strange woman called you from Miami, Florida at a little after 3:00 a.m., woke you up to say that her husband—who you had only met once in your life, a year before, in a lounge—had said to call you at 3:00 if she hadn't heard from him because he might be in some unknown "kind of trouble" at some unknown location in Washington, D.C.

Is that it?

(But, no, that won't work, either, because you include the fact of Hunt himself having woken you up in your article. Hmmmmm.)

<Sigh>

I have so much trouble trying to figure all you urbane, cosmopolitan people out. I'm just a bumpkin. I ask questions trying to learn, and your rebuff me. What's a hayseed supposed to do?

(Hey! Hunt didn't talk in falsetto when he called, did he, pretending to be a woman from Miami? Could that be it? Nahhh, that's probably not it)

Weird, weird world, that Washington, D.C. Hell, I can't even figure out how they fit so many time zones in a place that small.

Well, I figure at some point you'll get it all sorted out, so I'll just sit back and watch and learn. Maybe whittle or something. How's that new book coming?

Ashton Gray

As to Ashton Gray "thinking Stone's "Nixon" was "CIA-influenced" your logic here is sorely lacking

The only thing resembling logic I could dream up was the possibility of buttered popcorn overdose, causing him delusions of thinking this was the Siskel and Ebert Memorial Forum.

Thumbs down. The balcony is closed. (I have a sudden craving for Junior Mints.)

NO ONE THINKS TRICKY DICK WAS A GOOD GUY. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SAY IT?

THIS AIN'T SOME INSIPID GAME OF 'EITHER/OR'

I was the proud owner of a Nixon dartboard. I bet Speer wasn't.

Sorry: don't let me interrupt this fascinating discussion. I was really bored, and it was either this, or hot bamboo shoots under my fingernails.

Ashton Gray

I can only echo the approbation already sounded on your extraordinary body of work, John, and even that, regrettably, with not a single string of initials to append to my name, nor nary a sheepskin to frame, making mine a faint echo indeed. But it is a fine and estimable reference for the ages.

It also evokes a familiar weariness. It is not a lonely weariness.

It is the weariness of trudging over infinite spans of fictional landscapes labeled "History." It is the weariness of exploring rabbit hole after rabbit hole where there is no rabbit, and no way out. It is the weariness of seeing an attractive and heavily traveled path that seems to lead out the woods, following it forever, and arriving back at its entrance.

What I describe in my lamentations are not the accidents of history; they are the "mind mines" and intellectual booby traps of a never-ending war on history. There are many remarkable and even scholarly works that have approached these subjects, and none that I can name has escaped the fate of innocently laying in an uncountable number of just such bottomless holes, circular mazes, dead-end paths, and intellectual tar pits.

I would be guilty of inexpiable sin if I left this lament without an example of at least one such a booby trap that only recently, after years of research and analysis, has been safely nullified. Before that, it was a deadly and previously inescapable trap of completely fictional "history." It is embodied in the following declarative and emphatic statement (with link):

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

It is a simple and unassuming statement. It is a staggering statement. It is an earth-shaking statement. In less than ten words it rewrites decades of fictional "history."

All of "Watergate" hinges on there having been a "first break-in," because every "reason" gratuitously supplied by the men arrested inside the Watergate for being there at all is entirely dependent on this thoroughly nonexistent "historical event."

It never happened. It has no more truth in it than a Loony Tunes cartoon. It now is proven beyond the doubt of any rational and reasonably prudent person that no "first break-in" ever took place at all. It is inarguable.

So inarguable is it that for weeks I have had a standing offer to anybody on this earth to go into that thread and attempt to make the case that a "first break-in" ever did take place. I don't care who you are.

I don't care how many strings of initials you have behind your name. I don't care what "political history" department you work in, or in what university, or for how many decades you've been teaching that there was a "first break-in." Bring the entire staff with you and their whole trainload of trailing initials.

I don't care if you work for the most powerful law firm on the planet. Bring all the partners with you.

I don't care what role you played in or around "Watergate." I don't care how many books you've written or how many millions you've made on them from packaging and selling this fictional garbage. I don't care what lying "newpaper" you work for pumping out this sewage by the millions of gallons all over the world

Bring it on.

I'll embarrass you.

This is no alley-way taunt. It's just certainty, that's all.

I can give even more examples, e.g. one embodied in this equally emphatic and declarative statement of certainty:

The "Pentagon Papers" leak was a CIA op

I make the same offer. I don't care who you are. Come into that thread and debate me. Bring Ellsberg with you. (You won't, because he won't go near it.) I'll eat your lunch.

How many tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions of gallons of ink have been spilled and squandered spreading the complete fiction that Daniel Ellsberg was a lone, principled martyr for the cause of peace and brotherhood? How many trees were felled to build his legend? How many of you were taught that ineffably malicious lie, and have a diploma that required you bowing down to it? How many of you have spread that depraved myth in articles, lectures, books, classes, coffee houses, cocktail parties, and cook-outs? Do you know who wrote that patently idiotic play for the Grand Stage of politics, and wrote that heroic, martyred part for Ellsberg to play? Daniel Ellsberg, that's who. And he had an entire willing CIA to provide all the props and supporting actors, and to give him a CIA-made "Get Out of Jail Free" card that is so blatantly obvious that you have to be teetering on the brink of coma not to see it.

So to every person who reads this, ask yourself these questions: what is your responsibility for perpetuating such self-serving fictions and calling them "history"? What is your responsibility for being a willing and unquestioning soldier in the incessant assault on truth? How many of these iniquitous fictions have you accepted at face value without the least due diligence or critical inspection, and actively spread, like an infection, to others as "fact"?

In a great irony of actual life—one which no writer in existence ever has captured in even the most surreal excursions of literature—we reach deep, deep into our purses and bow down and give our gold to pay for the Lie Machines that crank out fiction after fiction after malignant fiction to publish in newspapers and textbooks so we have something to teach to children and build careers and reputations and forums and fortunes on, so that we can give more gold to the Lie Machines to crank out more lies that we can waste infinite amounts of our lives trying to "figure out," while we work to make more gold to feed the Lie Machines so...

And you wonder why our societies are on a nearly irreversible plunge into an abyss.

Orwell's 1984 at least came close, but Lewis Carroll is probably the greatest historian the world has every produced. No work of history even approximates his uncanny perception of the manufactured fictional universe we each have to wander through infinitely, thanks to these Lie Machines, trying to find the door to the "real" one.

And we have nobody to blame for the "universe" we each try to make sense of but ourselves. Just feed another gold piece into the anonymous Lie Machines they call "Think Tanks," and see what drops out the slot.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winnah! There's your history. Go spread the manure all over the earth.

Ashton Gray

Hi, Mr. Baldwin. Thanks for your response. You wrote:

1. I did not "plant" anything at McCord's house. I took what was in the room at the HJ and did what I was told to do, which was to deliver all of it to Jim's house. Those were the instructions I had been given and that I followed.

All right. Thanks. Here is what E. Howard Hunt has said in his autobiography about the instructions he gave you immediately after the "arrests." He claims this is the first time he had ever seen you in his life, that he didn't even know your name, and that you didn't even know who he was when he came to the door of the "listening post." This is just after he purportedly had dropped Liddy off at Liddy's jeep, then driven to the Howard Johnson's while the arrests were in progress:

• From the [Howard Johnson's] motel lobby I took the elevator to the seventh floor and knocked on the L/P [Listening Post] door. It opened a crack and I saw a man with a crew cut indistinctly against the dark background [Alfred Baldwin]. "Are you—?" he asked, but I handed him the W/T [Walkie-Talkie] and went inside, locking the door behind me. Offering me binoculars, he said, "Hey, take a look; the cops are leading them out."
  "Listen," I said, "it's all over. Pack up and get going."
  He looked around uncertainly. "Lotta heavy gear here. What do I do with it?"
  "Load the goddamn van and shove off."
  "Where should I go—McCord's house?"
  I stared at him incredulously. "That's the last place to go. I don't care if you drive the van into the river; just get the stuff out of here. Understood?" Turning, I strode toward the door.
  

NEW QUESTION 1. How would you reconcile what you said above with what Hunt says about what your instructions were?

2. No it is not true. I know for a fact no one followed me that AM to McCord's house. If you have Hunt saying that he followed me then it would have been said as a "figure of speech" in that at some point of time he drove to McCord's house after my trip. I don't believe that anyone else, other than myself or Hunt, would have made that statement since they would not have been there, and I know for a fact that I never made any statement about "anyone following me". I can not speak for Hunt.

Okay. I understand. Then we'll have to let Hunt speak for himself again. This is his description of the same events as above, but in sworn Congressional testimony. I'm picking up his testimony where he's describing a discussion he says he had with McCord during July of 1972, after McCord had gotten out on bail, and the testimony swings back to the instructions Hunt says he gave you, and what you did after the arrests:

• MR. HUNT: ...Mr. McCord said that he, himself, Mr. McCord, was short on funds. I suggested that he sell the van which Mr. Baldwin had, for some reason, driven to Mr. McCord's home in the wake of the operation against my instructions to take it elsewhere.
  MR. THOMPSON: Pardon me. You say against your instructions?
  MR. HUNT: Yes, Following the break-in...I did not go directly on the White House. I went over to the Howard Johnson Motel and spoke with a man whom I had not previously seen or met, but whom I knew to be an employee of Mr. McCord's, and told him to load all of his equipment into the van that McCord had and to drive away, get away from the premises. He said; "Where shall I go, shall I take it to Mr. McCord's home?' I said: "No, any place but that, I do not care where you take it. Drive it into the river, I do not care." In any event, it developed that Mr. McCord— Mr. Baldwin took the van to Mr. McCord's house and left it there.
  MR. THOMPSON: Do you know how far his house was from the Howard Johnson's Motel? Was it close by?
  MR. HUNT: Mr. McCord's home?
  MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
  MR. HUNT: No, it was a substantial drive. I would guess 15 or 16 miles.
  

So many questions arise from the above, such as how would Hunt know the distance if he hadn't followed you, given that there is no record at all of Hunt ever knowing anything about where McCord lived or ever going to McCord's house (but just ignore this question—consider it my "note to self").

The obvious questions directly for you, Mr. Baldwin, are:

NEW QUESTION 2. If Hunt didn't follow you, and if, as you say, no one followed you, and given that you left the van full of equipment at McCord's house in the wee hours of the morning, how did you leave McCord's house 15 or 16 miles outside of the city, and where did you go?

NEW QUESTION 3. How did you know where McCord lived and how to get there?

Thanks again.

3. As to what Caddy knew or didn't know I can not address. You would have to direct those questions to Mr. Caddy.

Heh. Now, why didn't I think of that?

Ashton Gray

It is good having Doug Caddy and Alfred Baldwin answering questions on this Forum. However, if they were indeed involved in the acts you accuse them of, they are highly unlikely to confess to them on this Forum.

I don't accuse. I've said "if they were involved." All I can do is observe what I observe and say what I've observed. What I've observed in the propensity of evidence is what I've stated as my opinions and my own conclusions from the facts in many articles in this forum, with substantial documentation. And I've asked Douglas Caddy and Alfred Baldwin a great many questions that they won't answer. Their refusal to answer, however many excuses or evasions are supplied, is a net no answer, and so it remains.

I disagree with you about this. Watergate is not the key event.

The "key event" to what?

It certainly is the event standing between now—the present—and all the earlier ones you name. And you'll never solve the earlier ones without getting through Watergate. It sits as a barrier on the same time stream. You can't leap-frog it. The JFK assassination is never going to be solved by picking endlessly over the same bones that were thrown to you decades ago (and the 60,000 phony-bones since), and they've all been picked till there's hardly any bone left. How much closer are you? It ain't there.

I believe it started in 1917 but the crossing of the Rebicon event was the assassination of JFK.

What I said exactly is: "I sincerely believe, from every indication that I have available to me, that here on the 13th day of July in the Year of Our Lord 2006, we have crossed the Rubicon on Watergate."

On Watergate. It is past the point of no return: return to the naive belief in the Mother Goose story we've been living in for 34 years that the CIA were innocent bystanders. The entire operation from Pentagon Papers on was CIA straight down the line. I haven't even seen anybody attempt to mount a cogent case that it wasn't since this information has been being posted. I'd love to see someone try.

And if you or anybody can explain to me how Caddy and Baldwin could have done only the things they've said they've done and been completely in the dark about it having been CIA straight down the line, God knows I'ld love to hear it. That's why asked them so many questions. They ought to be thanking me. Well, maybe not. But, I mean, it's their golden opportunity to explain how they weren't knowing accessories to a CIA black op against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces during time of war. Yet they won't answer and clear the air. Don't you find that a bit strange? I sure do.

I've even got a standing challenge to Caddy to meet me in the There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate thread and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in." He's a no-show. And he's a lawyer! Not only is he a lawyer, he's the lawyer (depending on which conflicting things he's said that you choose to believe) who was defending the men supposedly involved in a "first break-in."

Don't you find that a bit strange? I sure do. He won't go anywhere near that article. Won't touch it.

Since he won't try (I think he knows better), send me the best in the world. Send Buckley in there. Send Bennett with him. I'll eat their lunch.

Meanwhile, God bless everybody picking over the JFK asssassination bones and phony-bones. I sincerely, genuinely wish them luck. But I personally don't think they're going to end up with anything but "pickeder" bones unless and until the last brick of the Watergate fraud has been battered down. And then the Kennedy assassination is going to spill out. The truth.

Ashton

Dear Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin,

I write without a great deal of hope in my heart that the following open letter will be received as sincere and genuine. I realize fully that my reputation for satire, sarcasm, and rhetorical gut punches precedes me, and that you each have ample cause to feel the reputation is fully deserved.

I am vividly aware of the virtual state of rhetorical and intellectual war that exists between us. That's why I am posting this open letter in a public forum: so that all who pass here can judge for themselves my sincerity and good faith in this effort, or lack thereof.

I sincerely believe, from every indication that I have available to me, that here on the 13th day of July in the Year of Our Lord 2006, we have crossed the Rubicon on Watergate. So many key components of what the world has known as "Watergate" already have been stripped completely away as being the thinest veneer of lies and willful fraud covering up greater and more heinous acts, and there are many more exposures to come. Some are being made elsewhere by others as I write this letter to you. Some will continue to be made by me as long as I have a place to speak. But they will continue to come unabated, and no force or agency in this world will be able to stop them. That was guaranteed before I ever wrote a syllable here.

As I have written here in this forum on a considerable number of occasions now, attended by copious documentation with which I have had the good fortune to be supplied, it is my personal belief, on the facts, that these underlying acts rise to the level of Treason against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war, and against the people of the United States. I am not alone in this view.

If such crimes were committed, as appears to be the case, there is no statute of limitations, and the penalties are grim indeed, as you must be aware.

To what, if any, degree either or both of you might have been caught up in the planning and execution of any such acts, only you can know in your own heart and conscience. I do not know, do not claim to know, and have no means of knowing. I have only the evidence of testimony, and when fully inspected and compared, and weighed in the Ponderous Scales, the evidence, in my estimation, is grave indeed.

If either or both of you have, by any means, become a party to any such acts, you, and you alone, in your conscience and hearts, know how you became involved, and what motives or forces or duress might have been at play.

And the only purpose of this letter is to make the only appeal I can make to you, one based on good sense, or, failing that, even self-preservation.

In making this appeal to you, I state in the most open, bared, artless, earnest, guileless words that will serve me that I harbor not the smallest desire for harm or severity of consequence to either of you. However difficult this might be for you to believe, given tactics I have used attempting to get at the truth, there is no moment in which I have wished either of you personal ill will.

And my sincere appeal is simply this:

I appeal to you to recognize that the game is up. I submit to you that a time comes in the affairs and interactions of men when fires of ideology must be extinguished before they consume the firebearer.

I appeal to you to search your soul to its core for your own integrity and wholeness and basic goodness, and if, by any means, you have been duped or led or falsely persuaded or forced into conpiriatorial acts against your fundamental values, that you find any means—any means—available to you to unburden yourself completely of any complicity.

So fervent is my appeal that I go so far as to propose in all sincerity that if at any time any complicit party was blackmailed into cooperation, that any and all crimes or sins used against that person for such seditious purposes—without exception, without specificity, without exclusion—be made the subject of irrevocable amnesty, immunity, and forgiveness so that the greater harm and the guilty instigators can be held to just account.

However strange it may seem, it is my opinion, in writing this appeal, that if what I believe to be true is true, then just such a public forum as this may be the best guarantee of sanctuary from harm, for with public exposure of any and all forces, agencies, or persons who might have induced or enforced your participation in any wrongful acts, for them then to cause you harm would be the most damning act of self-incrimination and admission of guilt, while compounding their felony.

That is not to say that any such exposure by you would provide any certain immunity from or amelioration of any possible legal consequences. It hardly needs to be said that I have no standing in any such question.

But with the only means at my disposal, I yet make this fervent appeal to you, and can only state that given the monstrous scope and nature of what is laid before us all in these burdensome and troubling matters, that any honest and full admission of complicity by any given party could only go far, far, far indeed in possible amelioration of law, and certainly in charity and forgiveness by mankind and history.

This is all I have to say to you on this. It is all I can say. I say it with more sincerity than perhaps anything I have ever written.

And whatever course you choose to take from this moment forward, it is by your hand and determinism alone. This moment is the only moment of moment. You steer your own course from here into whatever future is made.

But know with certainty that the revelations and exposures of matters surrounding Watergate are going to continue to come, and are going to come in increasing volume and intensity, like a still-rising tsunami, and no more subject than that to being stopped or even impeded.

In all that is to come I sincerely wish for you no harm.

But in these rising tides, each of you, alone, steers your own course.

Ashton Gray

Dear Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin,

I write without a great deal of hope in my heart that the following open letter will be received as sincere and genuine. I realize fully that my reputation for satire, sarcasm, and rhetorical gut punches precedes me, and that you each have ample cause to feel the reputation is fully deserved.

I am vividly aware of the virtual state of rhetorical and intellectual war that exists between us. That's why I am posting this open letter in a public forum: so that all who pass here can judge for themselves my sincerity and good faith in this effort, or lack thereof.

I sincerely believe, from every indication that I have available to me, that here on the 13th day of July in the Year of Our Lord 2006, we have crossed the Rubicon on Watergate. So many key components of what the world has known as "Watergate" already have been stripped completely away as being the thinest veneer of lies and willful fraud covering up greater and more heinous acts, and there are many more exposures to come. Some are being made elsewhere by others as I write this letter to you. Some will continue to be made by me as long as I have a place to speak. But they will continue to come unabated, and no force or agency in this world will be able to stop them. That was guaranteed before I ever wrote a syllable here.

As I have written here in this forum on a considerable number of occasions now, attended by copious documentation with which I have had the good fortune to be supplied, it is my personal belief, on the facts, that these underlying acts rise to the level of Treason against the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States during time of war, and against the people of the United States. I am not alone in this view.

If such crimes were committed, as appears to be the case, there is no statute of limitations, and the penalties are grim indeed, as you must be aware.

To what, if any, degree either or both of you might have been caught up in the planning and execution of any such acts, only you can know in your own heart and conscience. I do not know, do not claim to know, and have no means of knowing. I have only the evidence of testimony, and when fully inspected and compared, and weighed in the Ponderous Scales, the evidence, in my estimation, is grave indeed.

If either or both of you have, by any means, become a party to any such acts, you, and you alone, in your conscience and hearts, know how you became involved, and what motives or forces or duress might have been at play.

And the only purpose of this letter is to make the only appeal I can make to you, one based on good sense, or, failing that, even self-preservation.

In making this appeal to you, I state in the most open, bared, artless, earnest, guileless words that will serve me that I harbor not the smallest desire for harm or severity of consequence to either of you. However difficult this might be for you to believe, given tactics I have used attempting to get at the truth, there is no moment in which I have wished either of you personal ill will.

And my sincere appeal is simply this:

I appeal to you to recognize that the game is up. I submit to you that a time comes in the affairs and interactions of men when fires of ideology must be extinguished before they consume the firebearer.

I appeal to you to search your soul to its core for your own integrity and wholeness and basic goodness, and if, by any means, you have been duped or led or falsely persuaded or forced into conpiriatorial acts against your fundamental values, that you find any means—any means—available to you to unburden yourself completely of any complicity.

So fervent is my appeal that I go so far as to propose in all sincerity that if at any time any complicit party was blackmailed into cooperation, that any and all crimes or sins used against that person for such seditious purposes—without exception, without specificity, without exclusion—be made the subject of irrevocable amnesty, immunity, and forgiveness so that the greater harm and the guilty instigators can be held to just account.

However strange it may seem, it is my opinion, in writing this appeal, that if what I believe to be true is true, then just such a public forum as this may be the best guarantee of sanctuary from harm, for with public exposure of any and all forces, agencies, or persons who might have induced or enforced your participation in any wrongful acts, for them then to cause you harm would be the most damning act of self-incrimination and admission of guilt, while compounding their felony.

That is not to say that any such exposure by you would provide any certain immunity from or amelioration of any possible legal consequences. It hardly needs to be said that I have no standing in any such question.

But with the only means at my disposal, I yet make this fervent appeal to you, and can only state that given the monstrous scope and nature of what is laid before us all in these burdensome and troubling matters, that any honest and full admission of complicity by any given party could only go far, far, far indeed in possible amelioration of law, and certainly in charity and forgiveness by mankind and history.

This is all I have to say to you on this. It is all I can say. I say it with more sincerity than perhaps anything I have ever written.

And whatever course you choose to take from this moment forward, it is by your hand and determinism alone. This moment is the only moment of moment. You steer your own course from here into whatever future is made.

But know with certainty that the revelations and exposures of matters surrounding Watergate are going to continue to come, and are going to come in increasing volume and intensity, like a still-rising tsunami, and no more subject than that to being stopped or even impeded.

In all that is to come I sincerely wish for you no harm.

But in these rising tides, each of you, alone, steers your own course.

Ashton Gray

Ashton Gray, a/k/a the Great Fake/the Great Flake, seems to be avoiding meeting you. One can only wonder way.

I think that would be "why." But the "one" wondering is you.

Nobody cares.

I'm not a Watergate figure. You are.

Hunt wasn't at your apartment when you say he was on June 17, 1972, was he?

It's all been his alibi and part of a much larger cover-up you're involved in, hasn't it?

Ashton Gray

Third in a series on "Helms the Perverse Perjurer, which currently contains the following other articles:

If there's ever been a lower form of two-faced, dissolute, double-dealing, morally dead, depraved vermin as Richard McGarrah Helms walking around the world masquerading as a human being, I hope nobody every alerts me to the fact.

And now here is this lie-machine in a tailored suit giving his account in his "autobiography" of how he supposedly learned about the Watergate "arrests." As you read the first sentence, please keep in mind that according to official accounts (well, most of them), the "arrests" didn't start until 2:30 in the morning. Although Helms doesn't give any exact time for his absurd claims below, it can't possibly be until after 3:00 a.m. But here's his story. See if you can choke it down:

• As CIA Director Richard Helms is "preparing for bed, Saturday, June 17, 1972," he gets a call from CIA Chief of Security Howard Osborn [sic—elsewhere "Osborne"] informing Helms that "District police" have picked up five men in a break-in at Democratic Party National Headquarters at the Watergate. Helms is informed that James McCord is one of the ones arrested, along with "four Cubans." But then Osborn also allegedly tells Helms that "Howard Hunt also seems to be involved in some way."
  Helms purportedly asks Osborn: "Is there any indication that we could be involved in this?" and is told "None whatsoever."
  Next, "still sitting on the edge of the bed," Helms places a call to Acting Director of the FBI L. Patrick Gray. In Helms's own words:
  "It took a few more minutes than usual for the ever-efficient White House switchboard to locate Gray in a Los Angeles hotel room.
  "Gray said that he had been informed of the break-in, but had no details. I filled him in as much as I could and assured him that, despite the background of the apparent perpetrators, CIA had nothing to do with the break-in. I added that I couldn't imagine what anyone could hope to gain by breaking into those offices. Gray listened politely but had little to say.
  "'You might want to look into the relationship of John Ehrlichman, the President's domestic policy advisor, with McCord and Hunt,' I said. 'He'll be familiar with the circumstances in which Howard Hunt was hired for work at the White House and with McCord's job on the Committee to Re-elect the President as well.' Gray remained unresponsive. After repeating my assurance that CIA was not involved with any of the break-in group, I put the phone down."
  

The mind simply reels with the internal contradictions just in the account above, alone. First, we're supposed to believe that Helms is "preparing for bed" at 3:00 in the morning." Next, we're supposed to believe that by this time, police have already found the "connection" to E. Howard Hunt in an address books belonging to Bernard Barker and Eugenio Martinez. But according to the Washington Post, those items weren't found by investigators until in the afternoon of 17 June 1972.

These arrogant, criminal CIA scum are constitutionally incapable of forming a sentence without it containing a lie.

But you ain't seen nothing yet.

Here, now, is the same diseased rat's "sworn testimony" before Congress about how he supposedly learned about the "arrests," this "testimony" coming less than a year after arguably the most scandalous and sensational event in U.S. political history:

• DAVID DORSON: [Mr.] Helms, I'd like now to direct your attention to June of 1972 and ask you when, for the first time, did you hear of the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate?
  RICHARD HELMS: It's my impression that I heard about it— read about it in the newspapers or heard it on the radio. But, uh— [Pause] This is not any lapse of memory, this is just one of those things, that, uh, this far— this far back, it's hard to know just exactly who might have told me or how I might have heard it. It certainly was big news from the moment it happened.
  DAVID DORSON: And during the days immediately following the break-in, were there conversations at the CIA concerning the break-in?
  RICHARD HELMS: Yes. In the first place, sometime on that weekend I received a telephone call from Mr. Howard Osborne, the Director of Security [of CIA], to inform me that— uh, of the names of the individuals who had participated in the break-in, and also to say that Mr. Hunt, in some fashion, was connected with it. Mr. Osborne's call to me was a perfectly routine matter. It was a charge on him as Director of Security [of CIA] to inform me whenever anybody in the Agency [CIA] got in any kind of trouble, whether they're present employees or past employees—in other words, right now—so that I didn't have to catch up with these events like suicides, and house break-ins, and rapes, and the various things that happen to the employees of any organization in a city like Washington. So this was a perfectly routine thing, and when he heard about these ex-CIA people who had been involved in this burglary, he called me up and notified me about it. On Monday, when I came to the office, there'd been no mention in the papers of Mr. Hunt. So I got ahold of Mr. Osborne and said, "How come you told me that Mr. Hunt was involved with this?" And he said, "Well, there were some papers found in the hotel room, or one of the hotel rooms, with Hunt's name on it, and it looks as though he was somewhere in the area when the break-in took place." So I said, "All right." And then, from then on, obviously, there were various conversations in the Agency [CIA] as we went to work on various requests from the FBI for information about the people—and their background and so forth—that had formerly been employed by the Agency [CIA].
  

I won't even bother trying to catalog the lies and contradictions. Anybody who can't see them at this point wouldn't understand them if explained.

Ashton Gray