Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ashton Gray: His repeated violations of Board Guidelines


Recommended Posts

Dawn

I forgot to mention...I think the Dorothy Hunt plane crash was to

send a message to Eduardo to keep mum. Nixon probably gave

the order. The Bohemian Grove secrets must be kept.

Jack

I totally agree, tho am not sure just WHO gave the order, only that it was given and that it worked.

Tho Hunt has said a few things. Some of which are in Ashton's posts. Others are in comments made two or so years back in either Slate or Salon mag.

Then of course there is the information in the Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby lawsuit.

Sure would be nice to ask Mr Hunt some questions, but the murder of his wife, mother of their 5 children

pretty much guarenteed his silence.

I agree about the Bohemian Grove, as well.

Dawn

ps Sorry to post this again. When I did it before it got stuck at the end of my prior post and it was my intent that this be a totally sep. post responding only to Jack's comments re Dorothy and Howard Hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Greetings, Mr. Caddy.

I considered that it would be unseemly of me to respond directly or immediately to your sensationalistic National Enquirer quality smear campaign that you've been running on me in two forums, and I also had more important things to do, one of them being to pose to you the 52 questions related to material discrepancies in the record that sit awaiting your response in the thread Who was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When?

Having completed that rather exhaustive research project, and while awaiting word from the people whose jobs you have appointed yourself to do in managing these boards, I'm now going to respond to your kangaroo court accusations against me.

In accordance with the instructions of Administrator Andy Walker in his June 24, 2006 posting in the Kennedy Assassination thread under the topic of Infiltrators, Saboteurs and Fifth-Columnists, I have used the Report facility to file a number of violations of Board Guidelines by Mr. Ashton Gray.

That would be "alleged violations," Mr. Caddy. You are not judge, jury, and Lord High Executioner. I'm going to skip entirely over your generalized, broad-stroke, meritless, and entirely abusive accusations, and go directly to the pitiable handful of actual cites you brought to build your case for summary excommunication.

From the Alfred Baldwin thread on Watergate:

Why not give the link, Mr. Caddy, so anyone with a modicum of reasonable probity can see the object of your strident complaints in context? Here, I'll help you out: Alfred Baldwin

Less than a month after his joined the Forum membership, Mr. Ashton in his posting in the Alfred Baldwin thread of Watergate wrote on June 21, 2006 at 05:04 AM: "Well, you’ve made your record. Just keep sticking to your story, Mr. Baldwin. I’m walking away for now. I’ve had all of your brand of truth I can take at the moment without puking on the keyboard."

Apparently I am accused of experiencing nausea. I plead guilty.

The relevant contextual information you omitted by truckloads, Mr. Caddy, is the tens of thousands of words of extraordinarily detailed foundational research I had compiled during that month and posted in the Watergate forum exposing the fact that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate at all, and the lengths to which I subsequently had gone in the Alfred Baldwin thread, relevant to the articles I had posted, to attempt to elicit from Mr. Baldwin responsive answers to the countless troubling conflicts in the record relative to his participation—or purported participation—in a "first break-in" and its aftermath.

For those of sufficient integrity and fairness who would like to see just how much effort I had brought to bear on the issues of merit, I invite them to read the thread I started in the Watergate forum, There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate", and the five foundational articles I had submitted. For easy reference here, those include:

26 May 1972: The "Ameritas Dinner" and Alfred Baldwin

27 May 1972: The "second failed attempt" and Alfred Baldwin

G. Gordon Liddy and the Phantom Polaroids

Liddy, McCord, and the Phantom Watergate "Bugs"

Liddy, Baldwin, and the Phantom Phone Logs

I should point out here for the record that although all of those articles have been sitting there in the Watergate forum for nearly a month now, and although they go directly to the heart of Mr. Baldwin's participation, and to your own representation of the men involved, neither you nor Mr. Baldwin have posted a single response to the thoroughly researched articles or to the startling conflicts in the record that are carfully itemized and cited in those articles. You both have avoided them entirely.

This is curious, since in sum they build a compelling and persuasive case that a massive fraud was perpetrated in 1972 and 1973 upon the courts, Congress, and the people of the United States.

What you also omit from your attempted smear, Mr. Caddy, is that prior to my celebrated allusion to my own incipient nausea, I had attempted repeatedly in good faith, in the Alfred Baldwin thread, to elicit from Mr. Baldwin even one straight answer to numerous troubling questions that arise out of the articles cited above, including, but by no means limited to, his preposterous claim, under oath in Congressional testimony, to have typed "almost verbatim" transcripts of telphone conversations on a stock electric typewriter in real time, making onionskin carbon copies. As I have pointed out repeatedly, it is patently impossible, as anyone easily can put to the test themselves with any typist they care to chose anywhere on Earth. His superhuman feat has never been duplicated. It is not a repeatable event. Yet you tacitly endorse such lunacy yourself in support of Mr. Baldwin—on no other grounds than his celebrity, apparently.

You also omit that my complaints of personal digestive indisposition came only at the end of a series of three lengthy posts I had made citing fact after fact after fact from the record related to Mr. Baldwin that could not possibly be true because of irreconcilable conflicts in that record, to which he never once responded in any way, although he had every opportunity to do so. It's in my record, Mr. Caddy. And obviously you read every bit of it very carefully. And obviously you or he could have responded in many ways that could have helped to elucidate, to clarify, to clear up the inconsistencies, since he was there, and since you represented seven of his co-conspirators in respect to the same exact purported activities over Memorial Day weekend.

And yet you both sat as silent as stumps. You both have evaded any and all material and responsive reply to even a single one of the now nearly countless discrepencies in your stories and accounts.

And what do you do? You extract from all of my good faith and exhaustively researched efforts two sentences about my dyspepsia as a result of running into constant stonewalling and evasion, and use that to attempt to have me summarily executed.

But do go on with your hatchet job:

That same day, on June 21, 2006 at 6:06 P.M., Mr. Ashton wrote in the Alfred Baldwin thread:

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

That's correct. And that says not a single thing about Mr. Baldwin. Every one of the adjectives that you went to so much trouble to attempt to have me beheaded with modify the noun "co-conspirators." None of those co-conpirators are members of this forum. All of them put themselves into the category of celebrity, even if infamous, and I have every right in the world to express my opinion about them. And my opinion is that they are soul-less, conscienceless, and lying, and that they perpetrated a massive hoax on the world, and that it was, in fact, evil indeed.

Would you like to have my rights to such opinions and expressions thereof eradicated on the sole basis of your own inability to identify the subject of a sentence and its modifiers? And does this constitute your whole case, Mr. Caddy? That's a pretty interesting foundation for a lawyer to attempt to mount a case for expulsion on. I wonder why you would go to such disingenuous lengths.

But please go on. Perhaps you have something with more substance somewhere:

In his posting on the Alfred Baldwin thread, Mr. Ashton wrote on June 22 at 11:51

P.M.: "1. Hunt and Liddy both lied. 2. You lied. 3. All three of you lied."

Let's see why you carefully omitted the relevant context of the quote. Here it is:

  • ASHTON GRAY:
    So, referring you back to your testimony about when and under what circumstances you met Liddy and Hunt, and comparing your 100% honest-and-true testimony (your claim) to their melodramatic legends, I come again—as I did with Mr. Caddy and his "Mrs. Barker phone call" claims to the Washington Post— to only three possibilities that I can see:
    1. Hunt and Liddy both lied.
    2. You lied.
    3. All three of you lied.

Anyone with even a small smear of integrity can see, Mr. Caddy, that I was expressing only three possibilities that I could see in attempting to reconcile hopeless conflicting testimony in the record.

Those statements are inclusive, not exclusive, Mr. Caddy, as I'm quite certain that you, as a lawyer, understand, and understood at all relevant times, even when you pulled what you quoted out of context and used it in your attemp to discredit me.

There was, and is, nothing to prevent anyone from answering with a fourth or fifth or sixth possibility, but comparing the testimony I had compared leading up to the statement, I, personally saw, and still see, only those three possibilities.

If the three possibilities I opined about bothered you so much, why didn't you simply answer my message and supply another more benign explanation?

I believe it's because you don't have any other to supply. Do you? If so, post it. If not, let's move on to your other accusations against me:

From the Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen and the CIA thread on Watergate:

Mr. Ashton in his posting on June 16, 2006 at 10:46 AM, falsely accused me of having a conversation with my client that never took place. It is a complete fabrication by Mr. Ashton, who wrote:

"Surely you'll recall that you couldn't hold a conversation after June 13, 1971 in Washington, D.C. that wasn't 'almost entirely consumed with' talk about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg. Right?

"And surely, surely you'd recall if you, Barker, and Hunt discussed the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg just a couple of months before Hunt and Barker were involved in the Fielding op that gave Ellsberg his 'get out of jail free' card. Right? I mean, Hunt was your client at the time."

I've had three disinterested and pretty intelligent friends look at this, Mr. Caddy, in an attempt to help me figure out just what the hell your complaint is, and nobody can come up with the foggiest idea what you're going on about.

I can't figure out if this is another reading skills hurdle, or just utter desperation on your part to smear me in any way you can manufacture, but there's no fabrication of anything anywhere in my speculative questions concerning the pervasiveness of discussion of the Pentagon Papers in Washington, D.C. around the time you claim to have met Bernard Barker, and its likely relevance to what you, Hunt, and Barker might have discussed, depending on whether your meeting with them was pre-June 13 or post-June 13 1971.

So your allegation is baseless and meritless. Moving on:

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 16, 2006 at 6:56 PM wrote of myself:

"1) Hunt Lied, 2)You lied, 3)You both lied.."

Using the same trick of disingenuously ripping something out of context doesn't work any better the second time, Mr. Caddy.

So, again, here's the relevant context:

  • ASHTON GRAY
    Well, if what you told the Washington Post that same day is true, Mr. Caddy, Mrs. Barker's call to you had to have come before Hunt ever even got to your apartment. And if that's the case, then Hunt's whole little anecdote about leaving one phone at his White House office to go to another phone at his Mullen office just to call to Mrs. Barker, and her dramatic little shriek, is just complete fiction. Just really, really bad, hack-writer spy fiction. It's just embarrassing! It's one of his trashy little spy novels passed off as "fact."
    So since we're just chatting candidly and casually here, tete-a-tete, Mr. Caddy, I have to tell you that I can see only three possibilities:
    1) Hunt lied.
    2) You lied.
    3) You both lied.
    Before the tour continues, I sure would like to have that one deadly booby trap cleared off the path.

So here, again, Mr. Caddy, I presented in candor to you the only three possibilities that I, personally, could see in respect of the irresolvable contraditions between your accounts of the purported phone call versus Mr. Hunt's horribly conflicting accounts—which you, curiously, have wholeheartedly embraced and endorsed.

And here, again, you took the three possibilities I proposed out of their context and "quoted" them in what you thought would be the most damaging—even if dishonest—way possible.

Yet those still are the only three possibilities I see, and so far, you have not responded at all to the conflicts in the record, or supplied any other more benign explanation.

Since by your omission of the correct context you've opened the door to that, let's have people be able to review that full message I posted, too. It's in the thread Douglas Caddy, Hunt, Liddy, Mullen, and the CIA, the message at the top of the second page of that thread. I recommend that everyone here read it carefully and draw their own conclusions.

Given the fact that right up until this very moment you haven't addressed any of the actual questions I've asked regarding that purported phone call from Mrs. Barker, and given the fact that you wouldn't even reply responsively to Mr. Speer's asking you politely to address these same troubling contrary facts, I have explored the same thing in much greater detail now in this thread in the Watergate forum. And the tension just keeps packing up and mounting toward critical mass, Mr. Caddy, as you continue to evade and avoid any address to the impossible conflicts in the accounts, while simultaneously doing everything you can to smear me and get me ejected from the forum.

But do go on:

Mr. Ashton in his posting of June 22 at 3:50 PM, addressed to Mr. Pat Speer, appeared to borrow the malevolent lines of Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs:

"And you can take the rest of your non-sequitur, irrelevant, disruptive, off-topic, red-herring bag'o'crap message and shove it anywhere you want, as long as you don't try shoving it in my face again.

"I might stop being so polite. You wouldn't want that."

Now, really, Mr. Caddy: I don't even like fava beans.

Yes: that's precisely what I told Mr. Speer, and that's precisely what I meant. Of course, in your one-sided smear campaign, you've omitted his own ad hominem against me.

And now I have, in fact, stopped being so polite. Maybe that's what Mr. Speer did want. But it's done. I permanently and publicly have completely severed any and all correspondence with Mr. Speer because he repeatedly has demonstrated, in my opinion, a willful intent to disrupt and and create irrelevant distractions, particularly in the very threads at issue where so many troubling questions have arisen related to both you and Mr. Baldwin and your relative testimony and record of facts related to Watergate.

Mr. J. Raymond Carroll, later that same day of June 24, 2005 at 5:24 PM wrote of Mr. Ashton’s repeated attacks on me:

"In this case, I see no reason to suggest that a valued fellow forum member is lying. I suggest you take off that cowboy hat and replace it with your thinking cap."

What I not only have suggested, but have said repeatedly, and have proven with exhaustively researched cites, and still stand by until proven otherwise, is that somebody in the record inarguably is lying.

You weren't attacked, Mr. Caddy: you were asked direct relevant questions going to your own unique percipient knowledge, which to this moment you have refused to answer responsively.

You have the same opportunity that I have to make a record. You have had ample opportunity to respond in meaningful and relevant ways, and clear the record, and clear any doubt or question about your own former claims and statements that have reasonably been called merely into question for confirmation and verification of what is or isn't true.

No one has interfered with your ability to respond, yet you won't respond. You evade, and launch a wholesale attack against the questioner. And here we are. Here we sit. Extremely troubling contradictions that you could resolve still sit unresolved, unanswered, while you wait for the headsman to appear and make the questioner go away.

You may even succeed in getting me to go away, Mr. Caddy. If you do, so be it. But the questions now will never go away. Even if eradicated from this forum, they will come back, again, and again, and again.

You probably are trying to think of some way to twist that into some other hallucinatory "threat," Mr. Caddy. I don't deal in "threats." I deal in questions, research, more questions, analysis, and more questions, all for the simple and benign purpose of arriving at truth. I have stated emphatically that that is my only "agenda" or purpose, because it is.

If you and I had that same purpose, I don't believe there is any possibility that this contretemps could exist at all. But that's my opinion.

The facts, and their conflicts, are in the record I have made, which you seem to be on a desperate quest to erase by any means.

I'm still almost stupefied that you came over here into the JFK forum and duplicated your wholesale assault on me, when I never had posted anything here at all except one small, brief acknowledgment of some documents that had been posted.

APOLOGIES TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM MEMBERS

All I can say to the active members of this valued forum is that I apologize profusely for their discussions having been so sensationally and unwarrantedly disrupted by this, and for the necessity of this lengthy reply by me. I also briefly will invite and urge them to read the documents and analyses that I have posted in the Watergate forum, which I've linked to in this message, and to read the many questions I have posed for both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Caddy that have arisen from this intensely thorough research.

I believe that its consequences inevitably will flow downstream (in a time sense) from Watergate to the JFK assassination, because I believe that they are linked by personnel and agenda. I also believe Mr. Caddy knows that very well, and that it accounts for his dragging this into the JFK forum as an attempted preemptive strike.

But those are my own opinions.

Please: read carefully the articles I have posted, and the questions I have posed for both Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Caddy and draw your own conclusions.

Thank you for your patience, perseverence, and continued interest in solving the biggest riddles of our time.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not recall mentioning Ashton or his postings. I was commenting only on the very apt Caddy descriptions of internet provocateurs. I did NOT call for the banning of Ashton. I do NOT EVEN KNOW what their dispute is about, and do not CARE. I am for banning anyone for ad hominem attacks. From what LITTLE I know, it appears that Ashton has been attacking Caddy, but I do not know ANY specifics. I have no idea why YOU are upset with Caddy. Neither of them have made vicious attacks typical of many others here.

That you think I sided with Caddy against Ashton, I ask you to please reread what I wrote. I wrote ONLY about provocateurs, NOT Ashton. As an attorney, surely your reading comprehension is better than demonstrated. Please reread my postings and quote any derogatory references to Ashton which I made.

I do not know why he is such a hero to you nor Caddy such a rogue.

As a participant in some of these events, Caddy has information I would like to hear. Wouldn't you?

Jack

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession...

Never mind Jack.

Typical!

I have no more to say to you.

If you don't take the time to read posts then why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or fairness that is completely lacking?

I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is) NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!!

But you would not know this since you "don't have the time" to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses to someone who has called for someone to be banned.

Dawn

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare.

No Jack. You're off base here. "The lady doth NOT protest too much."
Terry,

It's admirable that you would take up for Dawn, just as it's admirable that Dawn would take up for Ashton. Loyalty among friends is a fine quality. I'm sure Jack doesn't consider me a friend or even an acquaintance, but his point is apt and Dawn has both side-stepped and denigrated Jack's questions (alleging that Jack has attacked her "friggen profession" with no evidence beyond this: "As an attorney, surely your reading comprehension is better than demonstrated.") That's a very good ("wily," not "admirable") tactic for an attorney to come up with when dealing with questions they don't want to answer or valid points that were made that they don't want to address. Such as:

Jack White:

I have no idea why YOU are upset with Caddy.

I do not know why [Ashton] is such a hero to you nor Caddy such a rogue.

Pretty much the same thing Mr. Caddy is accused of doing, ain't it?

As for me, I'm increasingly scared of all of you and think it's probably best to withdraw away from this apparent nut-house for the time being. Much easier to try dealing with the Qumran scrolls and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Gospels than it is to try and figure who's a provocateur and who's only loopy.

Sincerely,

Dan

**************************************************************

"As for me, I'm increasingly scared of all of you and think it's probably best to withdraw away from this apparent nut-house for the time being. Much easier to try dealing with the Qumran scrolls and the issue of anti-Semitism in the Gospels than it is to try and figure who's a provocateur and who's only loopy.

Sincerely,

Dan"

I am really sorry to hear that from you, Dan. Sometimes those of us who are passionate about this case, have a tendency to get fed up with the "pussy-footing" around of the issues that have taken place in its on-going investigation. Those of us who have witnessed the apparent dumbing-down of their fellow citizens and the accompanying "royal scam" that has been allowed to perpetuate for the past 46 years, can become impatient with all the "political correctness" that's often been called upon, like a stumbling block being placed in the path of disclosure. So if we become a little testy, especially when we find a previously thought-of "ally" calling for a "cease and desist" simply because he's had the unfortunate experience of being slammed by a handful of experts in the field of provocation, doesn't mean that we are resorting to, nor "flipping over" to, the use of the same said tactics of provocation. Ashton asks pointed, if not actual questions of a similar bent that should have been demanded by the American populace itself, long ago, and have been to a degree, by the small voice of a band of concerned and aware citizens who've had the misfortune of being labeled as radicals, kooks, hippies, and other assorted slurs and insults, for merely raising those same points of contention in the past.

Edited by Terry Mauro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie

Hopefully, I am wrong about this and we are all having a little misunderstanding among people who are passionate about the same things. In any event, I have too much on my plate right now to get any further involved (re-writing my book [which was the Qumran and Gospels reference] and doing research on another book [which is why I dropped in here and read your reply]). I do appreciate your reply and respect your point of view, and in fact agree with it. I just have some doubts about who is "on the up and up" and don't have the time or patience to while away still more time on it. I also can't take on another whole "line of inquiry" (burrowing into all the evidence and history of Watergate) without losing what little mind I have left.

Sincerely,

Dan

__________________________________________

Dan,

Are Messrs. Hougan, Colodny, Gettlin and Gray to be considered Nixon loyalists? Does that not strike you as simplistic (to be kind)? The names I listed before that of Mr. Gray were unknown to anyone except regional clusters of readers who had the good fortune to be familiar with the works of these men prior to them gaining some notoriety - belatedly, in the case of Hougan. Gray's work here could prove to be nearly as signficant, and from what I've gotten thus far I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Unfortunately, I see much that is misguided, emotional and immature in so many of the dailies by other members.

I see quite different things in the postings of Mr. Gray, though, things I haven't quite seen on this subject since "Silent Coup" and "Secret Agenda." In fact, Hougan made the point that, because various factions salivated about going after Nixon, they didn't take a close enough look at the break-in(s). Ashton Gray has seized the moment here and goes even steps further.

We're witnessing someone virtually conducting an investigation (two, actually) right under our noses - and a damned cogent one at that. The man is on to something very large here in both the Ellsberg and Watergate cases and he is laying it out meticulously. It's up to you, Dan, but you might want to sit back and enjoy this genuinely crafty bit of work and cut the man some slack. Or, is this a matter for you and others at this site of having pearls laid before swine? Quite frankly, it wouldn't and shouldn't surprise me.

John Gillespie, Former Special Agent, U.S. Military Intelligence

Edited by John Gillespie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan, I realize you're busy, so I won't take much of your time, but you've said a few things I'd like to respond to.

But when the chief interrogator asserts that Richard M. Nixon was "irrelevant" in the CIA's nefarious plans for national and world domination, very severe questions are raised in my mind.

Hyperbole is so overarching. To paraphrase a famous personage, "I'm only here as an individual, not as a chief interrogator." I have questions I'm trying to get straight answers to. If they benefit others, great. Nobody else is being prevented from asking their own questions.

I've never postulated CIA "nefarious plans for national and world domination." I'm going toward where the compass points. If it pointed to the Boy Scouts, I'd be calling for some merit badges to be taken away.

And I can't help but think that the extraordinary animosity towards Mr. Caddy is at best misplaced. Has he not sought to make amends?

It's clear you haven't read my posts. In the most recent thread I started in the Watergate forum, Who Was Douglas Caddy Representing, and When, I said in the first message, and I stand by, the following:

  • ASHTON GRAY:
    Despite some allegations that have been made in this forum, I don't ask the questions to hound or needle. I have no personal axe to grind with Mr. Caddy; I don't know him. What I know is what's in the record, and the record is bedlam. The record is at war with itself—which is oddity at high water, since the record is made by people who all purport to tell the same thing. Mr. Caddy is one of the narrators, and is the only one of them participating here who can answer the questions.

Rumors of my animosity have been greatly exaggerated.

The "CIA-did-it" theory of Watergate was originally promoted by John Ehrlichman (in his pseudo-fictional The Company, a book in which a US President is blackmailed by a DCI)

I know all about the fully, blatantly, easily discreditable "blame-it-on-the-CIA-why-don't-you" packages that have been floated into the pond to get flocks flocking to them only to be shot down in droves or fly away in dejected disappointment. Do you think the use of decoys is something new?

I frankly believe that anyone who is willing to let Nixon off the hook...

Leave Nixon on the hook. We got plenty of hooks. There's no hook shortage if that's what you're worried about.

...for what still clearly seems to have been a White House operation...

<DING><DING><DING> Back up the truck. What still "clearly seems" that way? Are you referring to a purported "first break-in"? But there was no "first break-in" at all. I'm willing to bet you that after only a cursory examination of the articles I linked to above, you'll be walking away muttering to yourself: "You mean I actually fell for that crap for 30+ years"?

There's no slight intended in that. I know that's how I felt.

That doesn't even reach to "Whodunnit." That's way, way too far down a false path. Forget about whodunnit: back the truck allll the way up and just ask yourself "Was it done at all?" Start there.

And either way, I think it's legitimate to ask questions as to the motivations and "theorizing" of those who are doing so.

I'm on the record of being very reluctant to go off "theorizing," even when pressed. Every time I've succumbed to the temptation I've said very clearly and unequivocally those were only my own personal opinions, and, really, they are entirely irrelevant and unimportant.

What is relevant and very important indeed are the countless holes in the anecdotal, unevidenced claims of the co-conspirators themselves when those are held up to the light of actual scrutiny. And I'll tell you as I've told anybody who's asked: do not, under any circustances, take my word for it: go look at the fully cited comparisons yourself. Draw your own conclusions.

Then tell me what they are. But don't waste your breath or my time if you haven't at least looked.

In Mr. Caddy's case, I can't help but wonder whether the animosity...

Oh, brother... :rolleyes:

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh here we go agian, you attack my friggen profession...

Never mind Jack.

Typical!

I have no more to say to you.

If you don't take the time to read posts then

why should I bother to appeal to a sense of logic or

fairness that is completely lacking?

I never ONCE attacked YOUR profession (whatever it is)

NOR have I attacked Mr. Caddy, EVER!!!

But you would not know this since you "don't have the time"

to actually READ, you just post "get em" responses

to someone who has called for someone to be banned.

Dawn

Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare.

**************************************************

"Hmmmmmmmmm? I am tempted to quote Shakespeare."

No Jack. You're off base here. "The lady doth NOT protest too much."

Not the quote I had in mind, Terry. Try King Henry the Sixth, Part II, Act IV, Scene II.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At Dawn's urging, I went back and read several (not all) of the

Ashton/Caddy interchange. I learned little.

1. Both fellows would benefit from a "brevity in writing" course.

The are both profusive to the point of boredom.

2. They never get to the point. After reading a half-dozen postings

I still do not know what the argument is about, or what is the

stance of each, or why they hate each other.

3. My impression is that Mr. Gray has an agenda of some sort.

I cannot understand his devotion/motive in harassing Mr. Caddy.

4. My impression is that Mr. Caddy has inside information of some

sort that he thinks should be public. I detect no ulterior motive.

5. My impression is that Mr. Gray is the attacker and Mr. Caddy

is defending himself, and that this is a long-going relationship.

I come from a background of advertising copywriting. Ad copy

is brief and to the point. If you do not interest the reader in the

first few sentences, you have lost the sale. If you cannot explain

your message in a paragraph or two, you cannot communicate.

I would like for each of them to say IN 100 WORDS OR LESS

what this is all about.

I still agree with Mr. Caddy's perception of internet provocateurs.

And Dawn...I didn't say I take Shakespeare literally about your

friggin profession. :rolleyes:

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earth to Dan:

Ashton is NOT claiming Nixon is "irrelevent." Hardly!!

And I cannot understand this "conservative" ideology analysis of yours in

regards to all of this.

This is about HISTORY, NOT one's political ideology.

I do believe Ashton is, in fact, quite liberal, as is Mr. Caddy.

(I am basing the point about Mr Caddy on his prior posts

about becoming more liberal after the Republican party became

not to his liking: forgive the paraphrase here- I am working and

taking little breaks every few hours. ) So if I make a typo or am a slight bit

imprecise it's because I am very busy, but also feel that this debate is

also very important.

Dan, you were only 11 when Watergate happened, so you did not watch

it in the same manner as did someone of more adult years. Especially those of

us who by then long knew that our government keeps secrets from us: like who really

killed JFK, MLK< RFK just for starters.

I could recommend some reading here, but I think you have already

misunderstood enough, so I will keep these thoughts confined to the PM

section of this forum, (where they belong).

No-one has the answers here, or else we would not BE here.

Ashton is asking questions. But receiving no reply, except requests for his

banishment.

Apparently this form of posting:- asking questions- is no longer permitted.

I find it tragic that all the criticism he is receiving is from people who either refuse to read

the posts or insist that the time line is HIS. (The "CIA/remote viewing/ Scientolgy" etc. timeline that he LINKED here. )

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E? Mr. Gray asks Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Caddy a bunch of questions. He puts them on the defensive. Mr. Baldwin stops responding. Mr. Caddy stops responding. At Mr. Gray's request I try to intervene and get Mr. Caddy to answer a few questions. Mr. Caddy answers a question in a roundabout way, but this fails to appease Mr. Gray, who feels he's entitled to direct responses to his direct questions. Mr. Caddy gets suspicious that Mr. Gray's real desire is to harrass people like himself and drive people from the Forum, and speaks up about it. Mr. Caddy gets attacked as being an enemy of free speech and free enquiry, etc. Mr. Gray then announces that I'M THE ONE who's trying to interfere with the free exchange of ideas and announces that he'll no longer respond to my posts? WHAT? Mr. Gray is allowed to ask pointed questions to Baldwin and Caddy ALL DAY LONG, but he himself is never to be questioned? Where's the outrage? Why aren't those cheerleaders of Gray's, those telling him that Caddy's refusal to answer his questions is proof he's onto something, concluding that Mr. Gray's refusal to answer my questions is proof I'm onto something? In one of his posts Mr. Gray expounded upon the numerous people whose lives have been ruined by Watergate. I asked him who he was talking about as he clearly had someone in mind. I knew he didn't mean Hunt, Liddy, McCord, etc. because these men were, according to Mr. Gray, willing parts of the official fiction. So who was he talking about? Before we take Mr. Gray seriously we should know who he's defending. Was he just being dramatic? I later asked Mr. Gray if he was related to L. Patrick Gray, the FBI director disgraced and ruined by Watergate. He so far has refused to answer this question. If we are to believe that Mr. Caddy is hiding something because he won;t answer Mr. Gray's questions, should we not believe Mr. Gray is hiding something because he won't answer my questions? If his goal is the truth, why is Mr. Gray so determined to make sure the supposedly sincere exchanges on this forum are conducted on his terms, and his terms only? Could it be because his whole theory about Watergate is a bit lunar on its surface, and that he is thoroughly convinced that Watergate was a CIA-led conspiracy to replace Richard Nixon with Gerry Ford, for the furtherance of evil mind-control experiments?

Wake up people, the emperor has no clothes.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton is NOT claiming Nixon is "irrelevent." Hardly!!

Hi Dawn.

In response to several attempts by Pat Speer to utterly derail relevant discussion in the Alfred Baldwin thread and take it off topic, and in the context of a brief response on the subject of Nixon I foolishly gave to one of his off-topic rants, I closed what I had said with "Nixon is essentially irrelevant otherwise to me," and even that was said in the context of what I was trying to find out specifically from Mr. Baldwin, in a thread curiously entitled not "Richard Nixon," but "Alfred Baldwin." That statement, of course, has been latched onto like hyenas on a carcass, and bastardized into "Nixon is irrelevant" so another straw man can be kicked to death.

My 'umble suggestion would be don't waste your time trying to field such nonsense. If they could get it, they would have gotten it the first time. ;)

I do believe Ashton is, in fact, quite liberal, as is Mr. Caddy.

<A-hem> Um...

I find all such labeling and pigeon-holing and categorizing to be substitutes at worst and filters at best for thinking. My lowest marks are as "team player." I don't align myself with any pre-digested set of thoughts or positions on any issue, ever. I don't subscribe to anything that ends in "-ism."

Anybody trying to interpret anything I do against such amorphous concepts may as well be trying to tack down some quicksilver. I never bother to find out what anybody's "politics" are, because I never consider it a good enough excuse for anything.

Ashton is asking questions. But receiving no reply, except requests for his banishment.

Historically, isn't that, or burning at the stake, the ordinarily prescribed response?

Apparently this form of posting:- asking questions- is no longer permitted.

Depends on what questions you're asking. :rolleyes: Oh, yeah: and whether you remember when you're speaking to royalty that they can't be held accountable.

I find it tragic that all the criticism he is receiving is from people who either refuse to read the posts or insist that the time line is HIS. (The "CIA/remote viewing/ Scientolgy" etc. timeline that he LINKED here.)

Next, I'll probably have El Niño pinned on me.

Ashton Gray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like for each of them to say IN 100 WORDS OR LESS what this is all about.

Well, Jack, I normally don't honor requests to cater to the TV Guide blurb crowd on a subject that the perpetrators have poured millions of words and millions of dollars into in order to sell their fraud for 30+ years, but because you're a fellow ad copy man, I'm going to do you this one favor:

Tonight's episode: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. It was a massive hoax to cover up the actual whereabout and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin Memorial Day weekend 1972. I believe that Douglas Caddy knows this fully, and helped with the cover-up, which is the real cover-up of Watergate.

Sixty-six words. Pffft! Walk in the park.

Now let's see if Mr. Caddy will honor your request, too.

I still agree with Mr. Caddy's perception of internet provocateurs.

I'll agree with you that he's one of the best experts I've ever encountered.

Now, Jack, in exchange for my accommodating your request: Describe the universe and give two examples.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like for each of them to say IN 100 WORDS OR LESS what this is all about.

Well, Jack, I normally don't honor requests to cater to the TV Guide blurb crowd on a subject that the perpetrators have poured millions of words and millions of dollars into in order to sell their fraud for 30+ years, but because you're a fellow ad copy man, I'm going to do you this one favor:

Tonight's episode: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. It was a massive hoax to cover up the actual whereabout and activities of E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin Memorial Day weekend 1972. I believe that Douglas Caddy knows this fully, and helped with the cover-up, which is the real cover-up of Watergate.

Sixty-six words. Pffft! Walk in the park.

Now let's see if Mr. Caddy will honor your request, too.

I still agree with Mr. Caddy's perception of internet provocateurs.

I'll agree with you that he's one of the best experts I've ever encountered.

Now, Jack, in exchange for my accommodating your request: Describe the universe and give two examples.

Ashton Gray

Thanks for the brief summary. You could have used the extra 34 words to tell us

what you mean by FIRST BREAK-IN. I do not know what this means.

The universe? It is a MYSTERY beyond all human understanding...awesome, endless. (ten words)

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not studied Watergate in more than 25 years, but I will

tell you what I concluded after studying the facts at the time.

The Power Control Group (thanks, Dick Sprague) finally realized

that people were getting suspicious of endless assassinations of

the sixties. So they switched methodologies. Suicides, accidents,

scandals, etc. became methods of choice.

When Tricky Dick changed from an asset to a liability, he became

expendable to them. So they "Watergated" him, using CIA assets

and methods. Another assassination would look too suspicious,

and they were almost running out of patsies.

Attempts on Wallace and Flynt and Lennon were the among the the

last of the bullet barrages with patsies....except for Ronnie. George 41

was impatient to ascend to his "rightful" throne, so Ronnie was

quickly expendable. But someone botched the job. Hinckley fired six

shots...BUT ALL MISSED, so the backup plan was used. It too failed.

Remember Agnew and Rockefeller...scandals got them.

To silence Teddy K, they "Chapaquiddiked" him with a phony

scandal. His nephew JohnJohn was "accidented" with a bomb in

his Cessna. JohnJohn was seen as a threat to George 43 and Jeb

in the future. To get Hussein, they invented BinLaden. To get an

Iraq war, 3000 people were expendable in New York and Washington.

There is more, but I prefer brevity.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jack White' date='Jun 28 2006, 01:10 AM' post='66622']

Thanks for the brief summary. You could have used the extra 34 words to tell us

what you mean by FIRST BREAK-IN. I do not know what this means.

Jack

Jack:

Directions:

Go to Watergate part of forum.

Read thread re "NO first break-in".

Then ask yourself this:

Why did all the Watergate felons admit to said "first" break-in?

And then ask yourself:

If there was no first break-in, what were they really doing that Memorial

Day weekend. And in the days leading up to said weekend.

I like the KISS method myself too, so I've attempted to break it

down as simply as possible (but I did not count the words, sorry).

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...