Jump to content
The Education Forum

Watergate: What was it all about?


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest David Guyatt
Pat, it's hard to tell what's up with any of it. I guess the simplest explanation would be an affiliation with "Free Zone" and "Public Research Foundation." One of Ashton's threads had to do with press releases of the Public Research Foundation and exposure of government malfeasance in stealing Father Hubbard's psi-secrets & copyrights, and the complicity in that on the part of the Church of Scientology proper.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11294

http://www.freezone.org/timetrack/data/PRF/2000-08-29.htm

So who knows? I didn't gather that there was any proselytizing for converts (to a particular sect), but only a pretty intense conviction that the government had stolen all of Hubbard's big secrets to use in a hellish psi-op conspiracy that continues to run and ruin the world. And so Watergate, apart from being the culminating event in a pattern of TREASON against the presidency and/or President Nixon, evidently served as cover for what was really going on -- the NSA/CIA getting their damnable, bloody hands on the gold mine of Hubbard's positive, life-affirming legacy?

If the emphasis is on Hubbard as some kind of saint or messianic founder-figure, that's reason to see an affiliation with some version of Scientology. If the emphasis is on a big psi-op conspiracy, then Hubbard's psi-secrets are only part of a larger argument, as their theft gave the damnable, bloody-handed NSA/CIA the means to pursue their world-domination-through-mind-control agenda?

Other than that I don't know what the hell it was all about.

Daniel, firstly my apologies for the delay in getting back to this subject.

The principal concern I had with Ashton was his inclination - if not vehemence - to distance Hubbard from his obvious and disturbing occult roots. Not just occult, but his close association with satanist Jack Parsons (and fellow invoker with Parsons) in the "Whore of Babylon" ceremony that Levenda discusses in his book "Sinister Forces".

Ashton dissembled quite heavily to cloak/reject these connections.

The fact is, though, that Hubbard's Scientology clearly was an offshoot of a highly unpleasant system of occult/witchcraft/satanic practices. As has been discussed elsewhere in these fora, top Scientologist Tom Cruise, and his then wife Nicole Kidman (likewise a senior Scientologist), both appeared in the dark, disturbing and satanic film "Eyes Wide Shut".

It is these aspects of Scientology that have altogether deeper and nastier reverberations and which segue perfectly with later mind control experimentation and other unspeakable abuses of innocent victims. Only most people have been cleverly tuned-out of looking at the more sinister backdrop to these connections, usually treating them as faintly ridiculous or worse, make believe.

So when you close your above post with the words:

"Other than that I don't know what the hell it was all about."

You may be closer to the truth than any of us could possibly imagine.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
The principal concern I had with Ashton was his inclination - if not vehemence - to distance Hubbard from his obvious and disturbing occult roots. Not just occult, but his close association with satanist Jack Parsons (and fellow invoker with Parsons) in the "Whore of Babylon" ceremony that Levenda discusses in his book "Sinister Forces".

Ashton dissembled quite heavily to cloak/reject these connections.

The fact is, though, that Hubbard's Scientology clearly was an offshoot of a highly unpleasant system of occult/witchcraft/satanic practices. As has been discussed elsewhere in these fora, top Scientologist Tom Cruise, and his then wife Nicole Kidman (likewise a senior Scientologist), both appeared in the dark, disturbing and satanic film "Eyes Wide Shut".

It is these aspects of Scientology that have altogether deeper and nastier reverberations and which segue perfectly with later mind control experimentation and other unspeakable abuses of innocent victims. Only most people have been cleverly tuned-out of looking at the more sinister backdrop to these connections, usually treating them as faintly ridiculous or worse, make believe.

I'm afraid I can't help ya there, David, since I'm one of those who're uninclined to take occult arguments seriously. It's one thing to observe that certain people believed in such powers for themselves, and another thing to believe what they believed -- that their practices actually effected great powers for themselves (in a Satanic conspiracy?). I see "experiments" on humans as more than sinister enough, without any more sinister backdrop than the mad hubris of "patriotic" scientists and government people; and I see Hubbard as more of a con man whose biggest con job has screwed the minds of untold numbers of people, founded as it is on the idea of the malleability of the human mind and the efficacy of wiping it clean and making it ideologically "pure." But we all have different tastes of course.

I quite understand your position Daniel. You are far from alone in that respect. On the contrary, it is I who is in a tiny, tiny minority who investigate the irrational side of these things. The fact remains that Hubbard and some of his later applied scientology techniques derived from his earlier occult training/interests.

"Know thy enemy", Sun-Tzu said in his 6th century BC treatise on the Art of War.

However, whatever the belief system/motives underpinning these people, it is the social and personal impact of their excesses that are important to us. A guide to some of the more harrowing outrages that take place are contained in the Dutroux paedophile post of a week or two ago on the Political Conspiracies forum.

But it is far from a pleasant read...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Hubbard's interest in the occult was kindled long before he met Parsons. It dates back at least to his membership of the Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis or AMORC, in 1940. Hubbard had completed the first two neophyte degrees before his membership lapsed, and later there were private complaints that he had incorporated some of the teaching he had promised to keep secret into Scientology 25).

:eek

http://www.religio.de/atack/occ1.html

Among the more seemingly fanciful claims of Hubbard's oldest son, L. Ron, junior, was that his father was the successor to the magicians who created Nazism. Nazism was certainly an authoritarian group, a protypical destructive cult. Recent revealations about leading Scientologist Thomas Marcellus' long-running direction of the Institute for Historical Review can only add to speculation 95). Dusty Sklar has said that had she known about Hubbard she would have used him in the last chaper of The Nazis and the Occult rather than Sun Myung Moon 96). L. Ron, junior, was sure that the teachings of the Germanen Orden and the Thule Society had passed directly to his father by courier. In this light, the white circle on a red square of Scientology's International Management Organization 97)can be readily compared to the Nazi flag. The four lightning flashes or "sig runes" are also common to Nazism. No explanation is given for these sig runes by Scientology. They also appear on the RTC symbol. At the time that both of these symbols were introduced, Hubbard also created the International Finance Police, headed by the International Finance Dictator. An unusual choice of words.

:)

http://www.religio.de/atack/occ3.html

Edited by David Guyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
So, David, is the alleged CIA/NSA coup against Hubbard and Scientology in reality

PAPERCLIP ALL OVER AGAIN?!?!?

Looks like it could be eh, Jan.

In the article I posted I noted the following para that followed on directly from the previous one about Hubbard receiving all the Thule Gesellschaft's "teachings"

Hitler too had been aware of the power of occult symbols and rituals. Speaking of Freemasons, he said "All the supposed abominations, the skeletons and death's head, the coffins and the mysteries, are mere bogeys for children. But there is one dangerous element and that is the element I have copied from them. They form a sort of priestly nobility. They have developed and esoteric doctrine more merely formulated, but imparted through the symbols and mysteries in degrees of initiation. The hierarchical organization and the initiation through symbolic rites, that is to say, without bothering the brain by working on the imagination through magic and the symbols of a cult, all this has a dangerous element, and the element I have taken over. Don't you see that our party must be of this character...? An Order, the hierarchial Order of a secular priesthood." 98)

http://www.religio.de/atack/occ3.html

This quote was lifted from a novel by Gerald Suster titled "Hitler and the Age of Horus". Until now I had not heard of Suster but a quick Google showed he was a Crowleyian occultist and writer who had written more than once on Hitler (see: http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/s/gerald-suster/). He died in 2001 (see his Indy obit: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituari...er-728836.html) As only fact can outstrip fiction, it is worth noting that Suster was part Russian and his uncle was a friend of Rasputin no less (a Martinist). Suster also apparently "branched out" by writing erotica with a historical theme using a nom de plume......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt
Now that brings up a topic for a new thread - the Moonies and Moon himself - they seem much more of a CIA baby via KCIA and I still can't believe that their very popular, successful [run at loss for most or all years by funny money], and oft quoted Washington Times is considered as real 'Press' and not as a propaganda organ - which it is - even more clearly and more so than all the other propaganda organs that pose as 'Press'.

Indeed, Peter.

I once had the occasion (in my naiveté) to work very closely with the editor of a US nationwide magazine that was owned by the Washington Times, on an important Gulf War story. I literally spent seven months, day and night, 24/7 on it. Once documented proof of the story had been achieved, the editor simply spiked the story and basically stopped speaking to me.

Such experiences are a tonic for gaining a perspective on reality, I think. :rolleyes:

Edited by David Guyatt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Peter, for posting a link to Ashton's site.

1. There are only a few authors on the site. One of them is a writer of pulp mysteries named Jon D'Arme. The lead character in D'Arme's book, featured on the cover of his book, is "the Colonel". In his photos, Ashton Gray is dressed up to look like "The Colonel". There is no bio given for Jon D'Arme. Ashton Gray is therefore probably Jon D'Arme. Since Jon D'Arme is most probably a nom de plume for someone with a less dramatic name than Ashton Gray, Ashton Gray is probably another nom de plume for this same gentleman. Take a look and see if this makes sense.

http://www.omenbooks.com/Murder_at_Wisteria_Pines.html

2. Ashton has three books all set to come out. One of them is an assault on the pharmaceutical industry. When Ashton began pushing his "timeline" on the Forum, he claimed he hadn't written it, but had only discovered it online and wanted to share it with us. He told us that it was just a coincidence that the timeline was written to push scientology, and imply that the CIA's fear of L. Ron Hubbard's discoveries re remote viewing was the core cause for Watergate. (or something like that). Now, not only does he have the timeline on his website, but it appears he is pushing the scientology agenda that pharmaceuticals are evil, and that the only way to get "clear" of your problems is to get "audited" by a trained scientologist. (Of course, this isn't free.) Ashton Gray is therefore the nom de plume of a fanatic scientologist, quite possibly working with other scientologists, in order to spread the gospel according to L. Ron.

While I suspected as much from the get-go, I was sorta hoping I was wrong. If such a joker can dupe so many on this site--where people are prone to be skeptical--what hope is there really that less skeptical people will be able to see through jokers like Bugliosi and Myers, when Reclaimng History is broadcast on HBO?

I think, Pat, that you have solved the puzzle of who was or is the person known in the forum as Ashton Gray. Within days of his joining the forum he implemented a plan, likely previously conceived by him with other scientologists, to sow dissention and confusion among our members and succeeded brilliantly in doing so for quite a length of time.

While not dismissing most of what is posited above, let me ask we just slow down a bit. The book with what looks like and is likely Ashton posing on the cover is a work of fiction. Where exactly is the url for the timeline now? Ashton had sent part of it to me and it was a good timeline on Watergate. I don't like the Scientologists, though oddly enough they have at times done good research. It was my understanding from a few exchanges by private email with Ashton and from his postings on the Forum on his publisher's site that his forthcoming book on Watergate was going to be very negative toward Scientology...but I could be wrong or have been misled. It certainly did seem to be leaning toward an interest of the Plumbers and the CIA in things related to a favorite of Scientology - namely 'remote viewing', but I thought that was just to be a small part...perhaps I'm wrong. I know little of what the book will contain, in fact and the publisher's website tells little, as well.

Doug, I felt he was grossly unfair with you and I understand your enmity of him. I think we may have to await his book to see if he has any new worthwhile information. His publisher's Forum is strange indeed. At Ashton's invitation I joined. I had posted a whopping three or four posts when I was bannned for violation of [if I remember correctly, rule #14 op. cit. on the site]. I'd been asked a direct question and declined - with explanation - why I preferred not to answer fully. I could have just said I didn't know - but honesty was NOT welcome and I was banned. Very odd indeed. I don't know what to make of it all. Anyone know of past books Ashton has published? There are at least two persons on this Forum [i'll not name names] who know and communicate with Ashton frequently by email and even phone. I'd be interested to know what you think - as a post - or by private email.

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

IMHO, anyone who claims to be a member of Scientology, is a weak-willed, insecure, most likely an ex-druggie, or disillusioned Jesus freak, who needs constant reassurance that they are "on the right track," spiritually. Their dogma often smacks of the same cult-type rhetoric, if you can describe it, as such, one might very possibly find in the "moonies," the "Jim Jones" followers, or the CIA. And, from what I could determine, "once a Scientologist, or believer in their doctrine, always a Scientologist, or believer in their doctrine." Kind of like what happens to people affiliated with the Central Intelligence community, wouldn't you say?

Plus, it seems like an ideal set-up for an organization needed in herding "sheeple" through the "cattle-prodding" teachings of its revered leader, L. Ron Hubbard, whom they consider as a "god."

I was interviewed and taken on a tour of the Hollywood base of operations last September, and almost brought the interviewer to tears, by countering every proposition he attempted to set forth, as the bogus nonsense it really was. They had my friend and I sit through this propaganda video, which caused me to go through spasms of uncontrollable laughter at the sheer spectacle of themselves, and what they were trying to imply by this obvious sales pitch.

I informed him that the work he and his organization were attempting to do was commendable, and certainly helpful to those individuals who lacked the capacity to think for themselves. But I, on the other hand, was in the profession of helping people via the field of medicine, and some of Scientology's theories didn't hold enough credibility for me, nor for him to think that I, could take their organization seriously.

In fact, I had been more interested in seeing how his organization had meticulously restored the buildings they had procured, which I remembered had been hotels and apartment buildings formerly occupied by elderly people, in the Hollywood foothill area. I wondered how many of the former occupants had actually been displaced by this cult-ish, farcical "company?" They weren't forthcoming with any of those details, though.

It's unfortunate, seeing as I have a friend who is deeply entrenched in their philosophy. But, he doesn't try to force any of his beliefs on me, and is a dear person, in his own right. This is how I was goaded into taking a tour of the place, not by my friend, but by the managers. I felt sorry for the way they had been brain-washed into believing that this was all life had to hold for them. I guess some folks need the kind of assurance this organization offers, and I'm just a little too jaded to believe in fairy tales anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, the claim being made is that there was a CIA/NSA coup against Scientology around the time of Watergate. This involved the "disappearing" of L Ron Hubbard, the "theft" of the secrets of Remote Viewing by the CIA/NSA (in the persons of OT VIIs Ingo Swann, Hal Puthoff and OT L? Pat Price), and what appears from to be a major tax and land grab.

Like David Guyatt, I suspect that any Remote Viewing secrets that may have been "discovered" in the post-WW2 years by Scientology were probably occult secrets derived from the work of Ordo Templis Orientis member & JPL scientist, Jack Parsons. However, if the coup claim is correct then Scientology pre-1972-3 and post-1972-3 are very different organisations.

In passing, the following story is making the news in Blighty:

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word "cult" to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

Officers confiscated a placard with the word "cult" on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

A date has not yet been set for him to appear in court.

The decision to issue the summons has angered human rights activists and support groups for the victims of cults.

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church's £23m headquarters near St Paul's cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was "abusive and insulting".

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: "I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: 'Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.'

"'Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector."

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

On the website he asks for advice on how to fight the charge: "What's the likelihood I'll need a lawyer? If I do have to get one, it'll have to come out of my pocket money."

Writing on the same website, another anonymous demonstrator said: "We also protested outside another Scientology building in Tottenham Court Road which is policed by a separate force, the Metropolitan police, who have never tried to stop us using the word cult.

"We're completely peaceful protesters expressing a perfectly valid opinion. This whole thing stinks."

Liberty director, Shami Chakrabarti, said: "This barmy prosecution makes a mockery of Britain's free speech traditions.

"After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"

Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical. The police's job is to protect and serve. Who is being served and who is being protected in this situation? I find it very worrying.

"Scientology is well known to my organisation, and has been of great concern to me for 22 years. I get many calls from families with loved ones involved and ex-members who are in need of one form of help."

The City of London police came under fire two years ago when it emerged that more than 20 officers, ranging from constable to chief superintendent, had accepted gifts worth thousands of pounds from the Church of Scientology.

The City of London Chief Superintendent, Kevin Hurley, praised Scientology for "raising the spiritual wealth of society" during the opening

of its headquarters in 2006.

Last year a video praising Scientology emerged featuring Ken Stewart, another of the City of London's chief superintendents, although he is not a member of the group.

The group was founded by the science-fiction writer L Ron Hubbard in 1952 and espouses the idea that humans are descended from an exiled race of aliens called Thetans.

The church continues to attract controversy over claims that it separates members from their families and indoctrinates followers.

A spokeswoman for the force said today: "City of London police had received complaints about demonstrators using the words 'cult' and 'Scientology kills' during protests against the Church of Scientology.

"Following advice from the Crown Prosecution Service some demonstrators were warned verbally and in writing that their signs breached section five of the Public Order Act.

"One demonstrator continued to display a placard despite police warnings and was reported for an offence under section five. A file on the case will go to the CPS."

A CPS spokesman said no specific advice was given to police regarding the boy's placard.

"In April, prior to this demonstration, as part of our normal working relationship we gave the City of London police general advice on the law around demonstrations and religiously aggravated crime in particular.

"We did not advise on this specific case prior to the summons being issued – which the police can do without reference to us – but if we receive a file we will review it in the normal way according to the code for crown prosecutors."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1

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

""After criminalising the use of the word 'cult', perhaps the next step is to ban the words 'war' and 'tax' from peaceful demonstrations?"

Ian Haworth, from the Cult Information Centre which provides advice for victims of cults and their families, said: "This is an extraordinary situation. If it wasn't so serious it would be farcical."

Well, it's certainly heart-warming to see another person describing the scenario and situation in the same terms I used in my above post to describe "Scientology," a church, indeed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Peter, for posting a link to Ashton's site.

1. There are only a few authors on the site. One of them is a writer of pulp mysteries named Jon D'Arme. The lead character in D'Arme's book, featured on the cover of his book, is "the Colonel". In his photos, Ashton Gray is dressed up to look like "The Colonel". There is no bio given for Jon D'Arme. Ashton Gray is therefore probably Jon D'Arme. Since Jon D'Arme is most probably a nom de plume for someone with a less dramatic name than Ashton Gray, Ashton Gray is probably another nom de plume for this same gentleman. Take a look and see if this makes sense.

http://www.omenbooks.com/Murder_at_Wisteria_Pines.html

2. Ashton has three books all set to come out. One of them is an assault on the pharmaceutical industry. When Ashton began pushing his "timeline" on the Forum, he claimed he hadn't written it, but had only discovered it online and wanted to share it with us. He told us that it was just a coincidence that the timeline was written to push scientology, and imply that the CIA's fear of L. Ron Hubbard's discoveries re remote viewing was the core cause for Watergate. (or something like that). Now, not only does he have the timeline on his website, but it appears he is pushing the scientology agenda that pharmaceuticals are evil, and that the only way to get "clear" of your problems is to get "audited" by a trained scientologist. (Of course, this isn't free.) Ashton Gray is therefore the nom de plume of a fanatic scientologist, quite possibly working with other scientologists, in order to spread the gospel according to L. Ron.

While I suspected as much from the get-go, I was sorta hoping I was wrong. If such a joker can dupe so many on this site--where people are prone to be skeptical--what hope is there really that less skeptical people will be able to see through jokers like Bugliosi and Myers, when Reclaimng History is broadcast on HBO?

I think, Pat, that you have solved the puzzle of who was or is the person known in the forum as Ashton Gray. Within days of his joining the forum he implemented a plan, likely previously conceived by him with other scientologists, to sow dissention and confusion among our members and succeeded brilliantly in doing so for quite a length of time.

While not dismissing most of what is posited above, let me ask we just slow down a bit. The book with what looks like and is likely Ashton posing on the cover is a work of fiction. Where exactly is the url for the timeline now? Ashton had sent part of it to me and it was a good timeline on Watergate. I don't like the Scientologists, though oddly enough they have at times done good research. It was my understanding from a few exchanges by private email with Ashton and from his postings on the Forum on his publisher's site that his forthcoming book on Watergate was going to be very negative toward Scientology...but I could be wrong or have been misled. It certainly did seem to be leaning toward an interest of the Plumbers and the CIA in things related to a favorite of Scientology - namely 'remote viewing', but I thought that was just to be a small part...perhaps I'm wrong. I know little of what the book will contain, in fact and the publisher's website tells little, as well.

Doug, I felt he was grossly unfair with you and I understand your enmity of him. I think we may have to await his book to see if he has any new worthwhile information. His publisher's Forum is strange indeed. At Ashton's invitation I joined. I had posted a whopping three or four posts when I was bannned for violation of [if I remember correctly, rule #14 op. cit. on the site]. I'd been asked a direct question and declined - with explanation - why I preferred not to answer fully. I could have just said I didn't know - but honesty was NOT welcome and I was banned. Very odd indeed. I don't know what to make of it all. Anyone know of past books Ashton has published? There are at least two persons on this Forum [i'll not name names] who know and communicate with Ashton frequently by email and even phone. I'd be interested to know what you think - as a post - or by private email.

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

IMHO, anyone who claims to be a member of Scientology, is a weak-willed, insecure, most likely an ex-druggie, or disillusioned Jesus freak, who needs constant reassurance that they are "on the right track," spiritually. Their dogma often smacks of the same cult-type rhetoric, if you can describe it, as such, one might very possibly find in the "moonies," the "Jim Jones" followers, or the CIA. And, from what I could determine, "once a Scientologist, or believer in their doctrine, always a Scientologist, or believer in their doctrine." Kind of like what happens to people affiliated with the Central Intelligence community, wouldn't you say?

Plus, it seems like an ideal set-up for an organization needed in herding "sheeple" through the "cattle-prodding" teachings of its revered leader, L. Ron Hubbard, whom they consider as a "god."

I was interviewed and taken on a tour of the Hollywood base of operations last September, and almost brought the interviewer to tears, by countering every proposition he attempted to set forth, as the bogus nonsense it really was. They had my friend and I sit through this propaganda video, which caused me to go through spasms of uncontrollable laughter at the sheer spectacle of themselves, and what they were trying to imply by this obvious sales pitch.

I informed him that the work he and his organization were attempting to do was commendable, and certainly helpful to those individuals who lacked the capacity to think for themselves. But I, on the other hand, was in the profession of helping people via the field of medicine, and some of Scientology's theories didn't hold enough credibility for me, nor for him to think that I, could take their organization seriously.

In fact, I had been more interested in seeing how his organization had meticulously restored the buildings they had procured, which I remembered had been hotels and apartment buildings formerly occupied by elderly people, in the Hollywood foothill area. I wondered how many of the former occupants had actually been displaced by this cult-ish, farcical "company?" They weren't forthcoming with any of those details, though.

It's unfortunate, seeing as I have a friend who is deeply entrenched in their philosophy. But, he doesn't try to force any of his beliefs on me, and is a dear person, in his own right. This is how I was goaded into taking a tour of the place, not by my friend, but by the managers. I felt sorry for the way they had been brain-washed into believing that this was all life had to hold for them. I guess some folks need the kind of assurance this organization offers, and I'm just a little too jaded to believe in fairy tales anymore.

So I guess this means that you didn't let them hook you up to the E-meter or reveal your innermost embarassing secrets to your tour guide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

C-SPAN 3 (History) ran several previously recorded lectures, symposia and speeches on Watergate over the weekend.

They took place in the 1990s and included a bevy of speakers, ranging from preidential historian Hugh Sidey (formerly of Time Magazine) to Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, John Dean, Jim McCord and others.

I recommend catching some of the replays if CSPAN-3 re-runs them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...