R. Spencer Oliver

[John Simkin]

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

You have a strange notion that a timeline is a theory that is supported by the evidence. It is not. It is just a timeline. Your strategy is to provide a timeline of what appears to be two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology. The dates and details on your timeline might be completely accurate. However, it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected.

If you posted your theory about past events then I and other members might be interested in trying to rebut them (although some might not for fear of abusive sarcasm - I assume that is the reason you use this tactic). For some reason, you seem reluctant to provide theories backed up by evidence.

[Ashton Gray]

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

You have a strange notion that a timeline is a theory that is supported by the evidence.

Actually, I don't have any notion like that at all. I have a very unstrange notion that a timeline is a recitation of facts presented chronologically.

It is not. It is just a timeline.

Correct. Agreed. In fact, I'm on record as not propounding a theory. That's because I think the facts speak for themselves.

Your strategy is to provide a timeline of what appears to be two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology.

Allow me to correct what seems to be several misapprehensions.

First, I'm not engaged in any sort of contest or battle whatsoever, so naturally don't feel any need for a "strategy." Presentation of relevant facts is not a "strategy," nor does it require "strategy." It's a rather plodding clerical activity, not a win-lose game.

Second, the timeline—which speaks for itself—doesn't present "two separate issues, for example, Watergate and Scientology." It presents two very closely related issues: Watergate and the development of the CIA's remote viewing program, which run tandem in time, both very much connected with CIA. That CIA involved Scientology rather than Rosicrucianism in their remote viewing program is a matter of record. If it offends you that Scientology was made part of it by them, why do you take that up with me? I'm reporting the facts as I've found them to be.

The dates and details on your timeline might be completely accurate.

Considerable effort has gone into making it accurate, not just by me. Mistakes do get made, but by and large, yes, I'd say it's pretty darned accurate.

However, it does not mean that just because these events are in the same timeline, that they are connected.

Your syllogism, however flawed at its foundation, is at least consistent. But no one has made a claim that the events are connected only by virtue of being in the timeline. The events are connected by common CIA personnel, proximate or concommitant dates, and proximate geographical locations in many cases. So the situation is actually the inverse of your syllogism: because the incidents are connected, they are in the timeline.

If you posted your theory about past events then I and other members might be interested in trying to rebut them

I'm "theory weary." I've been pounded by "theories" about Watergate for over thirty years, none of which had the slightest ken of half of what I've put into the timeline in this thread. I don't feel any need to formulate a theory.

I've said repeatedly, and I feel that the facts I've presented in this thread and elsewhere make the case beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate at all. Without the "first break-in," all the "reasons" given for the so-called "second" break-in are false on their face. All—and that is ALL—of the extant "theories" on Watergate rely 100% on there having been a "first break-in." And there was no "first break-in." It was a hoax of the first order.

In the topic There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate, I posted this over six months ago:

If you do just that minimal homework, and still would like to return here and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in"—as all of us were duped into believing three decades ago and have accepted as an article of faith ever since—I will be more than happy to debate and discuss any evidence you're able to scrape up in support of a "Watergate First Break-in."

Personally, I'd rather have the Augean stables to shovel out.

Ashton Gray

For over six months that offer has sat right here in this forum, and not one person has taken me up on it. Including you.

The offer stands. For anyone on this earth. Bring 'em on.

Get Liddy here. Get Hunt. Get John Dean here. Get Colson here. Tell them all I'm calling them out. Alone. I'll take them all on alone, right here in front of God and everybody. You can e-mail them and send them this message from me.

And until somebody answers that offer, and until somebody effectively rebuts the yards of documented facts I've presented, for some reason I don't feel any compulsion to spit out "theories" for entertainment value.

I came to this forum not to joust, not to play patty-cake rhetorical games, not to engage in "strategy" or "tactics," but to steam-shovel away as much of the putrid, rotting lies spread by CIA criminals as I possibly can manage within the limits of my being, and to put as much documented truth in its place as I am able. I wanted, and hoped, to be engaged in discussion with people of a like mind and purpose, from whose knowledge in such effort I could benefit.

If my "tactics" offend you, maybe we fundamentally are working at cross purposes.

Ashton

Edited December 18, 2006 by Ashton Gray

[Guest John Gillespie]

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

________________________________________________________________________________

____

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

Regards,

JG

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

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

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

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

Ashton

______________________________

Ashton,

Thank you for quoting me, my friend. I want to discuss the fallout to your work in long term perspective via a follow-up dispatch but, for now, let me elaborate on my recent "state of inabsentia." I found myself collapsing into 'high horse' mode wherein I'm smarter, more experienced and have better judgement than these plebians. Not a good attitude under any circumstances even though it's true. Just kidding. I suspect that confession won't win a lot of friends but there it is. I'l watch my step as I descend from my yellowing, crumbling tower.

People join for various reasons and it is to be assumed, with the exceptions of those who thankfully expose themselves to be on a different track, that they're here for just about the same things, one of which is an honest search for truth. However - and here's the rub - there is this agenda thing that has blinded some of the folks and which manifests itself in subsequent nasty correspondence, as if a substantive opinion or even documented proof somehow is a threat. Apparently it is. That much is not exactly a revelation to you.

The pettiness routines get old, quite tedious and even out of hand. If one allows - yes, I'm gulty - it can blur some things of which one should remain in a keen sense of awareness: (1.) that time is well spent here, as this is a damn interesting and often fun place to be; (2.) that this is an immense, categorical, encyclopedic undertaking by people who do a tremendous job in serving us and (3.) the price is right.

So, I'll armor-up to accusations of being a CIA plant (I may damn well be; who knows?) or worse: a Warren Commission apologist. Yikes! Call me a Dick Cheney hunting buddy before you lay that one on me.

Regards and Best of Times in the upcoming days and nights to you, The Forum staff, Jack, Steve, lee, Myra, Wim, The Duke, Pat, Dan, Dawn and, most of all, to Doug and Alfred.

As Always,

John G

Edited December 20, 2006 by John Gillespie