In early 2004 a series of messages appeared through anonymous remailers in a variety of usenet newsgroups that were signed "The Real Deep Throat."

I now have collected what I believe is a complete set of the messages. As far as I can determine, these messages were the first indication ever that there was far more to "Watergate" than anyone ever had revealed or discovered in investigation, and that "The Official Story" was nothing but a pack of lies (the prime liars, of course, having been Woodward and Bernstein and the Washington Post).

One thing that I find particularly fascinating about this series is that on Tuesday, 31 May 2005, just a little over a year after this series of posts to usenet, the dodderning, senile Mark Felt was trotted out before the cameras in a staggeringly obscene circus to try to sell the world on his having been Woodward and Bernstein's "Deep Throat"—even though they had vowed that they would never reveal the phantom "Deep Throat's" identity until he was dead (that assuming, arguendo, that they ever had a "Deep Throat," which they didn't).

Though the knee, of necessity, was slow indeed to jerk, the knee jerked. The perpetrators of the "Watergate" fraud somehow had to reinforce the vicious hoax they had invested so much in.

Of course the only "Deep Throat" there ever was consisted of Woodward's own connections to U.S. intelligence and his own fictions to cover up for CIA and NSA.

Now John Simkin has introduced yet a new "Deep Throat" in the anonymous person of an "e-mailer who was close to Nixon" who apparently has come along, not unlike the pop-up (but mum) Mark Felt, to confirm that "The Official Story" is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Since all these "Deep Throats" are springing up like the spawn of dragon's teeth to sing another aria of "The Official Story," I thought it only fitting to record here, in date sequence below, the 2004 revelations of "The Real Deep Throat"—who sings a different tune altogether.

Ashton Gray

This is the first of the posts in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. This message appeared in the newsgroup misc.legal (and several other newsgroups) on 12 January 2004:

Date: 12 Jan 2004 08:12:59 -0000
Message-ID: <O6H6E8TW37998.1340162037@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a lie.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it.

That's why the so-called "logs" of the allegedly tapped DNC phone were always described as having been "worthless" by the players who peddled the story, and were destroyed without anyone investigating the case ever seeing any such alleged "logs." Of course they were worthless: they were fictional, manufactured work-product "logs" filtered through Liddy, not logs of actual phone calls, because the phone was never tapped.

That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the break-in on 16-17 June 1972 found no trace of any bugging device on any phone: there never was one.

That's why Liddy carefully made a big production of having letterhead printed that was emblazoned with the "top secret" name of his so-called "covert intelligence" operation - GEMSTONE - then made sure plenty of people saw it. GEMSTONE was not an intelligence operation: it was only a COVER for a major intelligence operation.

That's why the Cubans actually did hold an "Ameritas" dinner on 26 May 1972 at the Watergate: to make damned sure there was a record of their presence there and that the staff would remember them. But Liddy and Hunt weren't there. Ask them where they were. Ask them where they really were. (They'll tell you they were "in the vicinity." They are career liars.)

That's why the other career liar, Alfred Baldwin, claimed under oath that Liddy and the others were at McGovern headquarters at 2:00 a.m. during the night of 26-27 May 1972 - with Liddy purportedly riding around for a half hour with Baldwin and McCord - yet Liddy claims he was involved in the "first attempt" of the "first break-in" at the Watergate that night, using the "Ameritas business dinner" ploy. They both are career liars lying to cover up where they and Hunt really were.

That's why the other career liar, Bernard Barker, swore in Congress that his "only job" on the alleged "first break-in" was to "search for documents to be photographed," while career liar Liddy swore under oath that the only purpose of the team in the alleged "first break-in" was "to place a tap on the telephone in the office of Lawrence O'Brien and to place a room monitoring device in the office of Lawrence O'Brien" - neither of which was done. Why? Because there was no "first break-in" at all: it was a planned cover story and alibi for what really was done.

And that's why they actually did break in, and arranged very carefully to get "caught," on the night of 16-17 June 1972: the only reason was so the lie about 26, 27, and 28 May 1972 could be put into the record.

Why the big lie? Why get themselves convicted of a burglary? What were they really covering up that would be important enough to go to jail? Here's a hint: it's better than going to the chair.

Ask Hunt and Liddy why they had gone to the Pierre Hotel in New York City eight months earlier, on 4 September 1971 (the day after the equally phony Fielding office "break-in" using the exact same CIA-trained personnel/liars - same thing). Ask them what they were actually doing there, 3/4 of a mile from the Times Square "lab" of CIA's Cleve Backster, just before the hook-up of Backster and Ingo Swann.

There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972. There were no "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972. It never was anything but a cover story and alibi for one of the dirtiest deeds ever done.

The surviving principals and accomplices, as well as the surviving accessories to and after the fact, need no reminder that there is no statute of limitations on what they did and have covered up.

L. Patrick Gray was right on 17 April 1973 when he told Lowell Weicker "the lid is going to blow off." He just didn't know it was going to take over 30 years to blow.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: "Two seven thousand." So who's going to fry for all that hugger-mugger, Miss Priss? Better start squealing, piG-Man. Somebody else already has.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Ashton Gray

This is the second of the usenet messages of "The Real Deep Throat": Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972? It was posted on 13 January 2004, the day after the first post (above):

Date: 13 Jan 2004 20:51:52 -0000
Message-ID: <KJ7FERHZ37999.6610185185@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: Why is Liddy lying about 26 May 1972?
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.


Why is Liddy lying about where he really was on 26 May 1972?

Note the ALL CAPS EMPHASIS in the following excerpts of Liddy's self-conflicting stories of the evening of 26 May 1972.

CAREER-LIAR LIDDY'S FIRST STORY IN HIS BOOK, "WILL":

"On 26 May [1972] the Cubans all moved into the Watergate Hotel
under assumed names, posing as a group working for a corporation
named Ameritas. ...We had found that the Continental Room door to
the corridor was equipped with an electric alarm, so we couldn't
get through the banquet room after hours without first defeating
it. McCord discovered that the door alarm wasn't activated until
11 P.M. That proved THE KEY TO OUR PLAN.

"Ameritas told the Watergate Hotel that it wanted to hold a
dinner meeting and presentation. To allay suspicion and kill time
Hunt had a multicourse banquet ordered and rented a motion
picture projector AND TRAVEL FILM to play after dinner. ...We
expected the DNC headquarters would be vacant well before 11 P.M.
on a Friday night.

"MCCORD...EXCUSED HIMSELF FROM THE BANQUET... . Banquet time
arrived and THE REST OF US HAD A GOOD TIME, even POLISHING OFF
MCCORD'S MEAL. The film went on as scheduled and WAS SO BORING
the waiters were encouraged to clean up and leave early. WE RAN
THE FILM a couple of times for the benefit of anyone looking
in... . Finally, at 10:30 P.M, with NO WORD FROM MCCORD that the
DNC offices had yet been vacated, a guard making his periodic
rounds looked in and told US WE'D HAVE TO LEAVE.

"EVERYONE DID, EXCEPT HUNT AND GONZALEZ, who stayed behind
to turn out the lights, hoping TO RECEIVE WORD FROM MCCORD OVER
THE TRANSCEIVER... ."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"
"WILL"

CAREER-LIAR LIDDY'S SECOND STORY, UNDER OATH, IN VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION 6 DECEMBER 1996:

"[O]n the 26th of May we made our first of three attempts. Took
three attempts to get into there, because while it might not look
it, it is a fairly high-security building. There were some
Federal Reserve offices in there, as I recall, and so you had
guards from that downstairs, and then you had the building guards
and so on.

"In any event, the first plan was to have the Cuban cohort
pose as businessmen, salespeople. And so we created an
organization called Ameritas, A-m-e-r-i-t-a-s, and we rented a
ground floor room in which to hold a business dinner, supposedly.
We had a camera--a projector, rather, and screen. We had A FILM
APPROPRIATE TO TRAINING OF BUSINESS PEOPLE. And the object of the
exercise was to stay there so long that the guards would leave
them alone, and the alarm which led from there into the office
building WOULD BE DISARMED BY MR. MCCORD. And that would be how
we would get in.

"Bear in mind that I WAS NOT AT THAT DINNER. I WAS PRESENT
IN THE AREA BUT NOT AT THAT DINNER."

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
No. 92-1807: Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean, Plaintiffs,
v. St. Martin's Press, Inc., Len Colodny, Robert Gettlin,
G. Gordon Liddy, and Phillip Mackin Bailley, Defendants.

Liddy had eight years to get his story straight about 26 May 1972 before he published the pack of lies he called "WILL" in 1980. Liddy had 11 more years to get his story straight before he "completely updated" his pack of lies called "WILL" in 1991. Liddy had five more years to get his story straight before he was put under oath, on videotape, in deposition in December 1996.

Can you count the contradictions?

The alarm was supposed to be "disarmed by McCord" after 11:00 p.m., this was "the key" to their plan - yet McCord "excused himself from the banquet" before it was even served, never to return, and suddenly, somehow, became a look-out checking for whether the DNC headquarters was vacant or not?

The film was a "travel film" - but also somehow was "a film appropriate to training of business people"?

Liddy was there at the banquet, helping to polish off McCord's plate, being bored by the travel/business-training film, and left with the rest when told to - but "was not at that dinner"?

So which time was Liddy lying: in his book, or under oath?

The correct answer is: both times. Liddy is a career liar.

It is true that Liddy was not at that dinner on 26 May 1972. That one part he finally told the truth about under oath in December 1996, and proved conclusively in the process that he'd been lying for twenty-four years about it. Hunt was not in any liquor cabinet on that night, either, as Liddy went on to claim.

Now ask them where they really were.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

That's why none of their cooked stories ever made any sense to anybody who tried to make sense of it.

Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate. The truth makes Watergate as you know it look like a TeleTubbies episode.

While you're at it, you'd better find out what Alfred Baldwin was really doing at Andrews Air Force Base on 20 May 1972, and you'd better get the flight test logs for the then-new Air Force One 27000 during the end of May 1972 - while Nixon was traveling on 26000, lifting toasts in Moscow and Leningrad.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO CAREER-TURD LIDDY: Somebody very wise once said, "It's the cover-up that gets you." The name escapes me.

FOOTNOTE: On Sunday, 4 June 1972, exactly one week after the alleged 28 May 1972 "first break-in" at the DNC (which never happened), Ingo Swann flew to California and was picked up at the San Francisco airport by NSA's Hal Puthoff.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Ashton Gray

This is the third of the usenet messages from "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office. It was posted 15 January 2004, two days after the second message:

Date: 15 Jan 2004 03:36:27 -0000
Message-ID: <M17TZYNV38000.9419791667@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: Liddy lied about photos of O'Brien's office
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

G. Gordon Liddy claims that on Monday, 29 May (Memorial Day) 1972, he delivered to Jeb Magruder Polaroid photographs of the interior of the Watergate office of Democratic National Committee Chairman Lawrence O'Brien. Liddy claims that the purported Polaroids had been taken by Bernard Barker on the night before, 28 May 1972, during an alleged "successful entry" into the DNC offices at the Watergate. Liddy is a liar. There were no such Polaroid photographs. There was no such "entry" on 28 May 1972.

First, here is career-liar Liddy in his book, "WILL," lying about the Polaroid photos of Lawrence O'Brien's office, which he claims was "proof" of a "successful entry" the night before:

"On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the
successful entry into Democratic National Committee
headquarters in the Watergate. For proof, I showed him
Polaroid photographs of the interior of Larry O'Brien's
office, taken by Bernard Barker. Magruder was pleased."

G. Gordon Liddy
Book, "WILL"

Liddy is a liar.

There were no Polaroid photographs of the interior of Lawrence O'Brien's office taken by Bernard Barker on 28 May 1972 - not according to Bernard Barker himself in testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee.

Of course the main reason is that there never was any "first entry" into DNC headquarters on 28 May 1972 at all. But the Senate Watergate Committee believed there had been, and Barker had testified that during the alleged "first entry" they had found no useful documents. Therefore Senator Daniel Inouye asked the reasonable question of why the burglars had broken into the Watergate "again" on the night of 16-17 June 1972, the night that they were arrested:

SENATOR INOUYE: "...[W]hy did you go there again if you
realized that the documents you were looking for were not
there?"

BERNARD BARKER: "Uh, it was then evident that we were not in
the office of the Chairman. In our second entry we finally
came to the office of the Chairman."

Testimony of Bernard Barker
Senate Watergate Hearings 1973

Bernard Barker admits they were "NOT IN THE OFFICE" of DNC Chairman Lawrence O'Brien on 28 May 1972, the date of the alleged "first entry."

Bernard Barker says it was not until the night of 16-17 June 1972, during the purported "second entry" (really the one and only entry) that they "FINALLY CAME TO THE OFFICE" of Lawrence O'Brien.

Then how could G. Gordon Liddy, on 29 May 1972, have delivered to Magruder Polaroid photos of the interior of O'Brien's office, supposedly taken by Bernard Barker on the night of 28 May 1972?

Easy: Liddy is a liar.

The "Polaroid" story is just one more of Liddy's lies to help embellish the CIA-created cover story they all told, the alibi for where Liddy really was - along with others - and what he really had been doing on those few fateful days at the end of May 1972. Liddy is a career liar. He is much, much more than a mere liar, though, or even a third-rate burglar. "Third-rate?" No, at least give the Devil his due: how about "First Degree" instead?

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior failed attempts. They only "corroborated" each other.

Not until you know why these people went to such incomprehensible lengths to give themselves alibis for those dates in late May will you ever unlock the truth about Watergate.

PERSONAL MESSAGE TO GEORGEY-PORGEY LIDDY: It's _all_ going to come oozing out. Slowly. Every bit of it. Are you going to just sit and watch it like a slow bleed? Or are you going to be a man for once in your life and tell what you _really_ did and the reasons why you did it? Why do you still hide it behind the lies, hypocrite, if you were being such a good "soldier"?

Well, don't worry: your "soldierly" act will be burned into the permanent record for you - with or without your own rationale for what you did. Was it only _malum prohibitum_ Gordy? Or wasn't it in fact _malum in se_? Isn't that why you've agreed to keep it hidden in your black heart all these years? Or will you say you were "only following orders" like a "good soldier" for the good of "national security"?

Are you going to just sit and watch it all ooze out like a slow bleed while still attempting to protect your "principles" and your "principals"? Both have been compromised.

Don't worry, though: no matter what you do now, the entire sordid story _will_ be told for posterity - with or without you. Those soldier-boys of yours are going to have your TRUE legacy to live with their entire long lives - however it gets told - and will be able to look back at their photos taken with you in their soldier-boy costumes (real photos, not the phony Polaroids you lied about), being the apple of their daddy's eye. And won't what you did bring honor to those costumes and those boys!

Will it, Gordy? Polish that brass.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Ashton Gray

This is the fourth of the posts of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, posted on 17 January 2004: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate. At this message, "The Real Deep Throat" started adding an encrypted PGP signature to the posts, possibly because someone had started forging messages and signing them "The Real Deep Throat" (although I don't have those, if that was the case).

Date: 17 Jan 2004 05:00:24 -0000
Message-ID: <P88QRCDU38003.0002777778@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: No "bugs" were planted in the Watergate
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


The electronic "bugs" purportedly planted in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972 have always been described as being the work product of one man and one man only: James McCord. No one has ever claimed any other participation in the alleged planting of the electronic "bugs."

McCord was Liddy's expert, his "wire man" for the black-bag job.

In sworn testimony of 6 December 1996, G. Gordon Liddy described McCord as having had "a background as a tech in the Central Intelligence Agency" and also having had a background "in the FBI." That's why Liddy says he hired McCord for the job. In that same sworn testimony, Liddy says: "I recruited Mr. McCord."

McCord himself always agreed that all of his instructions for the planting of the purported electronic bugs, as well as all of the financing for them, came to him directly from G. Gordon Liddy - no matter who allegedly was ordering Liddy around.

Here is McCord himself on that subject in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee:

SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to
plant those two bugs?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set
the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were
first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ."

Now here's your first quiz question:

Where, exactly, were these purported "bugs" planted by McCord in the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate during the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972?

Can you answer? Do you know? Or are you confused about it? You should be. The two, and only two, people who claim to have masterminded and carried out the "wire" part of the operation certainly are. Let's see just how confused they are.

First, let's hear from career liar G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony regarding what had been planted by McCord, and where, during the alleged "first break-in" of 28 May 1972 - all on orders directly from Liddy to McCord (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

LIDDY: "[T]hey did what they were supposed to do, which was
to place a tap on THE TELEPHONE IN THE OFFICE OF LAWRENCE
O'BRIEN and to place A ROOM MONITORING DEVICE IN THE OFFICE
OF LAWRENCE O'BRIEN. ...There were two things they were to
do. One was the telephone of Larry O'Brien, wiretap, and the
other was a ROOM MONITORING DEVICE OF LARRY O'BRIEN'S
OFFICE."

- G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996

Well, Liddy should know. Liddy was the one who issued the orders to McCord about where to plant the devices. Liddy was the commander of the operation. Liddy was the one who had provided McCord with the funds for the devices. Liddy was the one who claims that he stayed in the "command post" - as he calls it - throughout the alleged "first break-in" on 28 May 1972.

So Liddy assures us that on this alleged "first break-in" of Watergate, there were TWO bugs to be installed on his orders: one a phone tap of Lawrence O'Brien's phone, the other a room monitoring device in O'Brien's office.

And Liddy assures us that he, as the "command post" boy, was convinced that McCord had done what he was "supposed to do" during the alleged "first break-in."

Now here's the view from the other career liar involved, the CIA's own electronics whiz-kid James McCord, the very man who claims he installed the bugs Liddy had ordered planted, testifying under oath before the Senate about the instructions he says he had been given by G. Gordon Liddy for the alleged "first break-in" at the Watergate:

SENATOR BAKER: What was the electronic assignment that you
had?

MCCORD: Installation of the technical bugging devices in the
Democratic National Committee... .

SENATOR BAKER: Did you have instructions as to where they
should be placed?

MCCORD: Yes.

SENATOR BAKER: Where?

MCCORD: In the offices themselves in connection with senior
personnel officers of the Democratic National Committee, and
specifically, Mr. O'Brien's telephone extension.

SENATOR BAKER: How many bugs did you plant?

MCCORD: Two.

SENATOR BAKER: And where were they? ...One of them was on
Mr.O'Brien's telephone?

MCCORD: That was an extension...that was identified as Mr.
O'Brien's. The second was Mr. Oliver's.

SENATOR BAKER: The second one was where?

MCCORD: In a telephone that belonged to Mr. Spencer Oliver...

SENATOR BAKER: Were you specifically instructed by someone to
plant those two bugs?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had passed along instructions... . He set
the priorities. ...[P]riorities of the installation were
first of all, Mr. O'Brien's offices... ."

McCord himself - who should know - says that it was G. Gordon Liddy who gave him, McCord, the instructions and who set the priorities for the planting of electronic devices in the alleged "first break-in."

Yet McCord himself - who should know - says that he planted two and only two bugs on the alleged "first break-in" - and says they were both phone bugs, not one phone bug and one room bug, as Liddy claims.

But if that is true, then why would career-liar McCord and career-liar Liddy have had the following discussion that career-liar Liddy claims took place between them on 5 June 1972, one week after the alleged "first break-in":

Monday, 5 June 1972

"I spoke to Mr. McCord...and I said, 'Where is the product of
THE ROOM MONITORING DEVICE?' And he said that THE ROOM
MONITORING DEVICE either was defective, or had inadvertently
been placed on a wall behind which was concealed a massive
steel support beam, which would absorb all of the small
amount of RF energy that the FM transmitter was putting out.
And so I said, 'Well, we are just going to have to make it
right... .'"

- G. Gordon Liddy, sworn testimony 6 December 1996

Are you confused? You should be. That's all they have ever been trying to do: confuse you. But it isn't over yet. Career-liar McCord went on in sworn Senate testimony to further embellish his and Liddy's lies when asked why they went "back in" to the DNC headquarters at the Watergate. Here's what he said while making a running fool of Senator Howard Baker:

SENATOR BAKER: Now, you weren't apprehended on this first
occasion, Memorial weekend. What was the purpose of the
second entry into the Democratic national headquarters?

MCCORD: Mr. Liddy had told me...to check to see what the
malfunctioning of the second device that was put in...and see
what the problem was, because it was one of the two things:
either a malfunction of the equipment or the fact that the
installation of the device was in a room which was surrounded
by four walls. In other words, it was shielded, and he wanted
this corrected and ANOTHER DEVICE INSTALLED...A ROOM BUG AS
OPPOSED TO A DEVICE ON A TELEPHONE INSTATED IN MR.O'BRIEN'S
OFFICE... .

Why do these career-liars constantly contradict each other about the "bugs" McCord purportedly planted in the Watergate on 28 May 1972 on orders of G. Gordon Liddy?

BECAUSE THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS.

The entire story, start to finish, is a LIE.

That's why you can't correctly answer your first quiz question: there is no correct answer possible.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."

That's why the phone company sweep of the DNC headquarters at the Watergate just days before the actual break-in - on 16-17 June 1972 - found no trace of any bugging device on any phone.

THERE WERE NO BUGS AT ALL INSIDE DNC HEADQUARTERS at any relevant time alleged by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and their other CIA co-conspirators concerning the phantom "first break-in."

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate any of their stories about the alleged "first break-in." Why? Because there never can be any "evidence" of something that never occurred.

The entire story of the alleged "first break-in" of DNC headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, and of two previous "failed attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, is nothing but a cheap, shoddy spy story written by a megalomaniacal hack fiction writer, G. Gordon Liddy, and his CIA co-conspirators. And none of them can even keep the story straight.

It's the same reason why thirty years later no one can answer the other burning question you all still want the final answer to:

WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the
Watergate?

Haven't ten million gallons of ink been spilled and a million hours of air time and uncountable hours of court and Congressional time been squandered in writhing over that one maddening, mercurial, torturous, agonized, harrowing, excruciating question?

Haven't countless lives been ruined, paved, in the 30-year path of the stampede to find the answer?

Do you still ache to know, to find out, to have the mystery finally solved, even after the evidence that's now been being laid out before you?

No, you're smarter than that. You're not actually the fools that Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA co-conspirators have always believed you to be. You are beginning to get the facts now - - not just their self-supporting, highly-financed fictions.

So here's your next quiz question. Let's see how you do now:

WHO was it? WHO ordered the 28 May 1972 "first break-in" of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate?

Of course there is only one possible answer:

No one.

No one ordered it, because it never happened.

It is a lie. It is a fiction. It is a fairy tale.

That's why no one in thirty years has ever been able to solve WHO ordered it. And that is the only reason.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It is, and always has been, a massive lie.

There is no evidence that it ever occurred, because it didn't.

There is only self-corroboration by the co-conspirators. That is all there has ever been as "evidence" - that and some "evidence" that they carefully planted in their own hotel and motel rooms, and in McCord's home, and in Hunt's White House safe for the express purpose of being found after they were "caught" on 17 June 1972 in the purported "second" break-in.

In "corroborating" each other about the phony "first break-in" - even as poorly, as pathetically, as sophomorically as they did that job - they made complete running fools of a President, his staff, Senators, the FBI, the public, and a panting, foaming press who gobbled up and spread their self-supporting lies.

Until the Senators, the FBI, the public, and the press find out what Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin were REALLY doing those fateful last days of May 1972 - while the CIA-trained "Cuban cohort" was busy providing alibis for them - the Senators, the FBI, the public, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the press will continue to be the running fools that these coordinated liars have made them out to be for thirty long years.

How did they bring down a President? How did they make fools of the Senate, the public, and the press? What did they do it with? Here's what they did it with: hack science-fiction that no pulp rag would ever publish about electronic "bugs" that never were planted at all.

The question is not "who ordered the first break-in." The key is not "follow the money." Those are the red-herring questions and tips that were planted as traps for the running fools.

The questions that actually must be answered are:

WHO ordered the FICTION of a "first break-in" to be created?

WHO created it?

WHY was it created?

WHAT were Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and Alfred Baldwin REALLY
doing while the "Cuban cohort" was providing them with an
alibi for 26, 27, and 28 May 1972?

WHO were they really working for?

WHAT were the real "national security" issues that made it
worth going to jail, destroying a President, and making fools
of the entire world?

WHAT was it REALLY covering up?

Liddy knows. Hunt knows.

And above all remember this: the head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQAidZrTZk3yf4K11AQFdQgf8CrrHR8jCTg4PnXoqk1VK8mPCLTieq0Me
Wss1hoRVaCvUwxAZI4nfYiGQvmgvEwbzJTihVINIpg8dWP00k6vAtgvfrrT/K9s3
vWlPOR1phSS7pKSNGwKZCT+okB22VxXUk8jXKVa0JSiBd/efVkvYPNYe2n96/01C
LgUy7B3nImweuJc3U1W2NjxjkoMCiUEAWf3abBfRf42Miq5d+gaop6VT64QyuhjU
doXs6qWehAgEWMr9/JuxVQl+jLEIbbCPCS6CktmMj4zekXjFBF0DvlcjSLJk3JB8
3YVtV3QpvF8QBGB11WNPY3nihCn00yx3xtIwyMVrGyoVoWjFf6Z/Tg==
=P/6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Ashton Gray

This is the fifth message in usenet by "The Real Deep Throat": Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other. It was posted 19 January 2004:

Date: 19 Jan 2004 04:30:31 -0000
Message-ID: <4YOK3JTW38004.979525463@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: Liddy and Baldwin lied for each other
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


G. Gordon Liddy claims that he was first introduced to Alfred Baldwin on Wednesday, 31 May 1972 - AFTER the alleged "first break-in" of Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate - and that their "introduction" was made in the dark "observation post" room in the Howard Johnson's motel across from the Watergate, using only aliases:

"On Monday morning, 29 May, I reported to Magruder the
successful entry into Democratic National Committee (DNC)
headquarters in the Watergate ...When I had nothing from
McCord by Wednesday [31 May 1972], I asked him why.
He...offered to take me up to the observation post to explain
the difficulty... . The observation post was dark. Inside was
a man I could hardly see, and McCord introduced us
monosyllabically, using aliases."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"
"WILL"

Liddy has sworn under oath that the man he claims he was introduced to for the first time "monosyllabically, using aliases" inside the "observation post" that night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, was Alfred Baldwin:

LIDDY: The listening post was across Virginia Avenue
Southwest, in a room in the Howard Johnson's motel.

QUESTION: And did you have occasion to visit that room?

LIDDY: Yes. Mr. McCord brought me there to see the setup, so
to speak. It was after dark. ...And I was sort of
monosyllabically introduced to a man who turned out to be Mr.
Baldwin, who was seated there and was observing.

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony 6 December 1996

But that's not what Alfred Baldwin says. Alfred Baldwin swore under oath before the Senate Watergate Committee that he and Liddy were first introduced NOT "after dark" on the night of Wednesday, 31 May 1972, but FIVE DAYS EARLIER, during the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972:

SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Baldwin...you returned to Connecticut on
May the 23rd and came back to Washington on May the 26th; is
that correct?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct - Friday.

SENATOR WEICKER: And you returned to Room 419 at the Howard
Johnson's on May 26th. Now, when you entered Room 419 on May
the 26th, what did you see?

ALFRED BALDWIN: ...When I entered the room it was
approximately 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon... . Mr. McCord was
in the room. ...I was told that some other individuals would
be coming to the room that were part of the security force
and that in view of their position they would be introduced
under aliases... . Two individuals came to the room... .

SENATOR WEICKER: Now, subsequently, have you identified who
those two men were that came into the room?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct. In the FBI photographic
display they were identified as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the
Senate Watergate hearings

The meeting Baldwin describes above was not "after dark," as Liddy claims: it was in the afternoon. Baldwin clearly identifies both Liddy and Hunt - together - as having been in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's with him and McCord that afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972.

Room 419 of the Howard Johnson's also was not the "observation post" that Liddy describes in his account of their alleged "first meeting" - there was no way to see into DNC headquarters from room 419 at all. The so-called "observation post" was room 723 of the Howard Johnson's, and records show that room 723 was not registered in the name of McCord Associates until Monday, 29 May 1972. That's three days AFTER the meeting Alfred Baldwin describes above as having taken place in room 419 of the Howard Johnson's on the afternoon of Friday, 26 May 1972.

But it's even worse: in order to embellish the alibi he was providing for himself, Liddy, Hunt, and McCord, Alfred Baldwin went on under oath to describe more events that he claimed happened later that same night: 26-27 May 1972. Not only does he claim he was with Liddy and McCord later that night, he claims that Liddy and McCord freely discussed their purported covert activities while riding around in McCord's car with Baldwin sitting between them in the front seat:

SENATOR WEICKER: Now, that same evening, the same evening of
May the 26th, was there a trip to McGovern headquarters?

ALFRED BALDWIN: That's correct, there was. ...We [Baldwin and
McCord] proceeded to McGovern headquarters. ...This was late
in the evening, approximately 1:00 or 2:00 in the early
morning hours... . Mr. McCord had been in communication over
a walkie-talkie unit with some other individuals, and...we
stopped adjacent to a light-colored car. An individual
alighted from the car and came into the front seat of Mr.
McCord's car. I slid over so I was between Mr. McCord and
this individual.

SENATOR WEICKER: Can you tell who that individual was?

ALFRED BALDWIN: It was Mr. Liddy.

SENATOR WEICKER: And did you succeed in getting into McGovern
headquarters on that evening?

ALFRED BALDWIN: No. They drove around - Mr. McCord and Mr.
Liddy did all the talking - and they drove around...over a
half hour. As a matter of fact we drove up the alleyway next
to the building. They discussed the problem of lights; there
was a discussion of whether or not their man was still
inside; there were several discussions and finally Mr. Liddy
said that - "We'll abort the mission." That was his terms.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin before the
Senate Watergate hearings

Yet Liddy swore under oath that the first time he met Alfred Baldwin was not until FIVE DAYS LATER, on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, "after dark," in the so-called "observation post" at the Howard Johnson's, when they purportedly were "monosyllabically introduced" to each other by McCord.

So who's lying? Is it career liar G. Gordon Liddy? Or is career liar Alfred Baldwin?

Of course there's only one answer: they BOTH are lying.

Where is a scrap of evidence for any of it?

There isn't any. Fiction does not produce evidence.

The only "evidence" there ever has been for the alleged events of the end of May 1972 concerning Watergate is the juvenile pulp fiction you've been reading in "testimony" above: a two-bit spy story by a two-bit megalomaniac; a pretentious, self-aggrandizing fable written by a hack fiction writer named G. Gordon Liddy and his CIA co-conspirators, a story that MAD magazine wouldn't have published in "Spy vs. Spy." It wouldn't have passed the cut for a Three Stooges episode. And the actors in the drama can't even keep their idiotic "story" straight when trying to tell the lies to cover for each other.

What were they covering up? What is Liddy STILL covering up? Why all the elaborate, embellished lies - under oath - to account for each other's whereabouts those fateful last days of May, 1972? Why are they giving each other alibis, and "confessing" to penny-ante crimes in order to do it?

What were the REAL crimes they told this spy story to cover up?

HINT: They are INTERNATIONAL crimes.

Where were they REALLY between 25 and 29 May 1972?

HINT: They weren't in D.C.

What were they REALLY doing? Who were they REALLY working for?

HINT: Liddy knows. Hunt knows. The DCI knows. So does EVERY DCI THAT HAS EVER HELD THE OFFICE SINCE MAY 1972. Read 'em and weep.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin, Barker, and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed, nor were Liddy, Hunt, McCord, or Baldwin anywhere near McGovern headquarters on the dates they claim. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." They only "corroborated" each other.

Every DCI since knows the truth. The head always knows what both the right hand and the left hand are doing.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQArqqLTZk3yf4K11AQFcYwf/f8laZMNSfCfQxZE6qThBJe9BdQcuPpVQ
rwY/4iPpTz6J0Rf3VPi7P9nuBYcKOcu3/jmOVs9O4+6cWoGkC/iYvFmr+2t7LkoK
C9h7RXIzTWCslaQ2COCTO4qB7iE1ozLrXALh6RFnPzoYdLnkJ28jc/PltB9yjN72
9PlXcVSR+5JM9dtMAheRZzWofV6Z/CVvNCESlvkVDf0JslxH1z+Xyo6umxiqBZq3
HiLPD6T5UUKEQHru/798pSd+bOJsrgBXfQTTyVQUhmSWwgqJ+bQ6YOnXQw8IMTDO
6idzV0Umk15TLAXyoBsypXwBia9Qn1PhuuhCiEmlx9/qxZ8qNum5cg==
=4jNE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.


Ashton Gray

This is the sixth and last message of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, What Sally Harmony Saw, posted on 23 January 2004. Why did such a short series of anonymous messages scare the principals of the "Watergate" hoax so bad that in less than a year and a half they would try such a desperate measure as trotting out the mute fossil Mark Felt as a completely implausible "Deep Throat"? Here is the last in the series:

Date: 23 Jan 2004 12:46:30 -0000
Message-ID: <4RUUQEI038009.3239583333@anonymous>
From: Anonymous-Remailer@See.Comment.Header (THE REAL DEEP THROAT)
Subject: What Sally Harmony Saw
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address.
It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----


Sally Harmony was G. Gordon Liddy's secretary when on 5 June 1972 Liddy had her type "logs" of telephone conversations that Liddy provided to her. The crisp and efficient typing of Sally Harmony not only resulted in the resignation of a President of the United States, it also paved the way for the creation of the CIA's top-secret Remote Viewing program at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) less than four months after her lithe and nimble fingers typed the last period on Liddy's logs.

Why? Because as it turned out, these were no ordinary phone logs that the accommodating Sally Harmony typed up for George Gordon Battle Liddy. To hear Liddy tell it, he had been the mastermind of a hyper-clandestine "first break-in" at the Watergate on 28 May 1972, with the purpose of having CIA's James McCord plant an illegal electronic "bug" on the phone of Lawrence O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

So, naturally, Liddy had his own secretary type up the phone logs from this super-secret, illegal operation of his. Wouldn't you?

But Liddy went one better: he not only had Sally Harmony type these allegedly illicit logs, he instructed her to type them on special stationery Liddy also provided for the purpose, stationery that had emblazoned across the top, in color, a mysterious name he had dreamed up: GEMSTONE.

Of course the rational mind balks right there. Of course any self-respecting editor of even the cheapest, cheesiest, trashiest cloak-and-dagger fiction would laugh out loud at such a ludicrous premise before wadding it up and throwing it at somebody.

But in 1973 whole committees of United States Senators sat with furrowed brow for the cameras, listening to just such trumpery. So-called journalists took to wearing tennis shoes because they couldn't get to phones fast enough to suit their editors in order to hold the presses for this lunacy. Special counsels for Congressional Committees frowned and pursed their lips and steepled their hands and asked deadly serious questions about this hogwash. Here the guileless Sally Harmony answers questions put to her by Special Counsels to the Watergate Committee, Sam Dash and Fred Thompson - at enormous taxpayer expense:

MR. DASH: Did you type these telephone logs on any particular
stationery?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes; Mr. Liddy had printed a stationery with
the name "Gemstone" across the top of it... .

MR. DASH: Did you have any directions as to how you were to
use this stationery? When were you to use the so-called
"Gemstone" stationery?

SALLY HARMONY: I used it for the telephone conversations that
I typed.

MR. DASH: For the telephone conversations?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes. ...

MR. THOMPSON: ...[T]he printed Gemstone stationery, how many
times did you use that?

SALLY HARMONY: Perhaps two or three, Mr. Thompson; I cannot
be definite on that.

MR. THOMPSON: The printed Gemstone stationery was used only
on the illegal - on the telephone bug results?

SALLY HARMONY: Yes, as I recall.

But from WHAT did Sally type these logs of alleged phone taps? WHAT had Liddy provided her to type from?

WHAT did Sally Harmony see?

It's not an idle question, because ONLY Sally Harmony's typed version of the logs, with GEMSTONE emblazoned across them, reportedly got distributed to and seen by others besides Liddy, and thereby ultimately brought down a President of the United States. ONLY Sally Harmony's version of the logs made it possible for the CIA to enter into a top-secret contract with Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann on 1 October 1972 to develop "remote viewing" for military intelligence purposes.

So WHAT did Sally see?

To answer that question, it's necessary to pause in this story of skullduggery long enough to trace the provenance of these purported "logs." After all, they did topple a President of the United States from office and sent many people to jail, so surely it would be worth allocating at least a few miserly paragraphs to a review of the claims for their very existence.

How did these history-making, history-changing, infamous records of allegedly bugged phone calls make their way from an illegal wiretap in DNC headquarters, through G. Gordon Liddy, to the neat and tidy desk of his prosaically obliging secretary at the Republican national campaign headquarters?

What did Sally Harmony see, and how did it come to her?

Immediately a confusion arises for anyone attempting to trace that crucial path because Liddy and two of his co-conspirators have alleged that there were TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the phone logs, BOTH versions described as being TYPED:

1. Allegedly, there was an ORIGINAL version typed directly by
Liddy's co-conspirator, Alfred Baldwin, while listening to
the output of the phone bug that supposedly had been planted
by their fellow co-conspirator, the CIA's own James McCord.
These purportedly went from Baldwin via McCord to Liddy. This
alleged version of the logs will be referred to as the
BALDWIN VERSION of the logs.

2. There is the SECOND version, typed by Sally Harmony on
GEMSTONE stationery on orders from G. Gordon Liddy. This is
the ONLY version purportedly seen by people associated in
various ways with President Nixon. (There are too many
conflicting stories about who did or did not see them, but
that is neither here nor there for these purposes: whoever
saw logs or did not see logs, ONLY this SECOND version was
distributed.) This distributed version will be referred to as
the DISTRIBUTED HARMONY VERSION.

Consider #1 above: the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of typed logs. Did Sally Harmony see THAT version of the logs? Is that what Liddy gave her? Is THAT what Sally Harmony saw?

No, it is not. Sally Harmony never saw them.

The D.C. police investigating Watergate never saw them.

The FBI investigating Watergate never saw them.

The Congressional Watergate committees never saw them.

The press never saw them.

In fact, only three people in the world - all of them admitted co-conspirators - have ever claimed to have seen the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. Not surprisingly, they are G. Gordon Liddy, the CIA's James McCord, and Alfred Baldwin.

Here is what Liddy has claimed in sworn videotaped testimony that he was getting from McCord and Baldwin:

LIDDY: I wasn't getting any tapes, nor was I getting
transcriptions of anything. I was getting logs. ...And the
stuff was just of no use at all. It was stuff like
hairdressing appointments and somebody going to take a trip
somewhere, and personal stuff like that. ...These logs were
so badly done, misspellings and all the rest of it, that I
felt compelled to edit them. And I did that through my
secretary, Ms. Harmony, and I tried to clean them up a little
bit and leave out the worst of it, try to include the best of
it, which wasn't very much.

G. Gordon Liddy in sworn testimony
6 December 1996

Well, Liddy should know - he's the one who claims to have been receiving the original BALDWIN VERSION logs from Alfred Baldwin, via James McCord. And Liddy, with his background in law enforcement, certainly understands the difference between a "log" of calls and a verbatim "transcription" of actual conversations.

Now here's what James McCord said in sworn testimony about these alleged original BALDWIN VERSION logs. McCord is being questioned under oath by Sam Dash, Chief Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

MR. DASH: Could you briefly describe...what actually would be
entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type?

MCCORD: It would be similar to any other telephone
conversation that one person might make to another, beginning
with a statement on his log of the time of the call, who was
calling who, A SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS SAID during the
conversation itself, including names of persons who were
mentioned... .

Testimony of James McCord

Well, that seems more or less consistent with what Liddy claims to have been receiving, except McCord adds that there was a "summary" of each phone call as well.

Unfortunately, what Liddy and McCord claim Alfred Baldwin was producing isn't what Alfred Baldwin himself said in his own sworn testimony before the Senate Watergate Committee:

SENATOR ERVIN. The information you got while you were at the
Howard Johnson [across] from the Democratic headquarters,
what form was it in when you gave it to Mr. McCord?

BALDWIN. The initial day, the first day that I recorded the
conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day [Monday,
29 May 1972]...when he [McCord] returned to the room he
brought an electric typewriter. He instructed me in the upper
left-hand corner to print - or by typewriter...the date, the
page, and then proceed down into the body and in
chronological order put the time and then the contents of the
conversation... .

SENATOR ERVIN: And you typed a summary of the conversations
you overheard?

BALDWIN. Well, they weren't exactly a summary. I would say
almost verbatim, Senator.

SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim.

Testimony of Alfred Baldwin

Yes, that's what Baldwin said: "almost verbatim." And he should know. After all, he's the one - and the only one, according to their stories - who purportedly sat 'round the clock for two weeks in early June with headphones on, listening to the output of a bug that McCord allegedly had planted in the DNC, and typing his fingers to the bone. He's the one who had to do all the typing of the alleged original BALDWIN VERSION of phone logs.

Alfred Baldwin must have been some special kind of typist. Even court reporters would be in awe. Certainly Sally Harmony would have been impressed. So would anyone who has ever tried to type an "almost verbatim" record of a conversation in progress.

And to think: he spent all that time typing "almost verbatim" transcripts of conversations about hair appointments, trips somebody was taking, "and personal stuff like that."

So who's lying about the logs? Liddy? McCord? Baldwin?

Of course they all are lying. Of course the reason that neither Sally Harmony nor anyone else in the world ever saw any such "logs" or "summaries" or "almost verbatim" transcriptions is because they never existed at all. There were no BALDWIN VERSION logs, ever. It is a lie, start to finish. There were no such logs because there were no bugs planted in the Watergate during any "first break-in" on 28 May 1972. That's because there was no "first break-in" at all. It is a lie told by the same liars lying about the logs.

THEN WHAT DID SALLY HARMONY SEE?

To finally learn the truth about what Sally Harmony saw, we must venture once more into the labyrinthine mind of G. Gordon Liddy himself. Only Liddy can tell it; it is, after all, his tale.

Liddy claims that it happened this way, beginning on Wednesday, 31 May 1972, when he says he met with the CIA's James McCord and Alfred Baldwin in the dark and secret "observation post" - Room 723 of the Howard Johnson's across from the Watergate - where, according to Liddy's fabulous fiction, Alfred Baldwin was busy making the original logs (emphasis in ALL CAPS):

"McCord gave me some typed logs of the interceptions to date.
...When I got home I looked over the logs. [Alfred Baldwin]
was no typist. The logs revealed that the interception was
from a telephone...and that the telephone tapped was being
used by a number of different people, none of who appeared to
be Larry O'Brien. I decided I...had to wait until I had more
product of better quality from McCord. ...I expected the
product to improve. No such luck. The next day's take was the
same. ...On Monday, 5 June, I DICTATED from the typed logs TO
SALLY HARMONY...EDITING AS I WENT ALONG."

G. Gordon Liddy's "autobiography,"
"WILL"

And now we finally know the answer: Sally Harmony never saw anything at all.

She listened. Sally Harmony rolled a page of GEMSTONE stationery that G. Gordon Liddy had provided into her electric typewriter, she slipped on the earpieces of her dictation machine at her neat little desk, she pressed the pedal, and she listened to the voice of G. Gordon Liddy DICTATING the "logs" she was to type that gave Liddy, McCord, Hunt, and Baldwin the alibi they needed to cover up where they had REALLY been on 26, 27, and 28 May 1972.

The "logs" came from Liddy's lying lips.

There were no actual "logs" from the Watergate.

There were no "bugs" planted in the Watergate.

There was no "first break-in" at Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate on 28 May 1972 as claimed by Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Baldwin and their CIA-trained pack of Cuban liars, nor were there any failed "attempts" on 26 and 27 May 1972, as they also claimed. It all is, and always has been, a massive lie. And it is the REAL cover-up.

There is not now, and never has been, a single scrap of evidence to corroborate their stories of the alleged "first break-in" and prior "failed attempts." Even the HARMONY DISTRIBUTED VERSION of these alleged "logs" didn't survive to be seen by a single investigator of Watergate. All copies were destroyed first.

The co-conspirators only "corroborated" each other.

The reason they corroborated each other, lied for each other, went to jail for penney-ante crimes, and defrauded the entire world is because they were providing themselves with alibis for those fateful last days of May 1972 in order to cover up their REAL crimes committed then - crimes far more vicious, far more heinous, far more odious, shocking, and abhorrent than anything ever uncovered in all the endless annals of Watergate.

They were working directly for DCI Richard Helms.

The mission that they really carried out between 25 May 1972 and 29 May 1972 had been being planned for years and had been set in motion a year earlier by Daniel Ellsberg, who had been guaranteed that he would never be convicted on the "Pentagon Papers" before those strategically worthless "secret" papers ever saw ink.

That's what opened the door for Hunt and Liddy to be slid over into the White House in July 1971. They had to be well established as being connected to the White House to carry out their ACTUAL assignments during the last week of May 1972. There was an important reason for them to have White House credentials. Part of that reason lies at the 89th Airlift Wing.

Hunt and Liddy also used the exact same team of CIA-trained Cuban liars on the phony "break-in" of the office Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis Fielding in September 1971 as they used for the phony Watergate "first break-in." The Fielding op also was an alibi for Liddy and Hunt while they were doing other dirty work for Helms and the CIA in preparation for what was to come in 1972. It also gave them an "excuse" for traveling to New York City on 4 September 1971, where they registered at the Pierre Hotel - just a brisk walk from the Times Square lab of CIA's Cleve Backster.

Hunt was "the principal" for all of it - the principal hand-puppet of DCI Richard Helms.

Every DCI since Richard Helms has known exactly what was ACTUALLY done during the last days of May 1972 by Liddy, Hunt, McCord and others, and so has been an accessory after the fact. They all have shared and kept the guilty secret because for over thirty years it has been the Number One filthy "national security" secret that has had to be protected at ALL cost. Here is that roll of eternal shame and their tenures as DCI:

Richard M. Helms: 30 June 1966 - 2 February 1973
James R. Schlesinger: 2 February 1973 - 2 July 1973
William E. Colby: 4 September 1973 - 30 January 1976
George H. W. Bush: 30 January 1976 - 20 January 1977
Stansfield Turner: 9 March 1977 - 20 January 1981
William J. Casey: 28 January 1981 - 29 January 1987
William H. Webster: 26 May 1987 - 31 August 1991
Robert M. Gates: 6 November 1991 - 20 January 1993
R. James Woolsey: 5 February 1993 - 10 January 1995
John M. Deutch: 10 May 1995 - 15 December 1996
George J. Tenet: 11 July 1997 - present

The "Watergate" scandal is still a festering, gangrenous national and international wound that will not heal. It cannot heal, ever, until that wound is reopened and every last septic secret that lies buried in it is dug out and exposed to the disinfectant light of public scrutiny.

Then you will know why on Sunday, 1 October 1972 - exactly two weeks and one day after a federal grand jury indicted Liddy, Hunt, McCord and their pack of CIA-trained Cuban liars - CIA Office of Technical Service entered into the classified Contract 8473 with Hal Puthoff, Ingo Swann, and Russell Targ. And it was all because of what Sally Harmony saw.

THE REAL DEEP THROAT



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQEVAwUBQBC1SrTZk3yf4K11AQGbCAf/XBDtQCoN8IW/oXcYfQ6CC8KkvSTtuyCY
O4Afckgntz3yfV1uzt31tVU9BSviied08va3RmsjnUh6HvyccPjNKd/q2tm1k3mu
22Hzz6yxNs7vRGmHt2JYSjnM+hJ6b2PIt+jsiXgGCGHMgIO1AAO1NqGygRxLNSXT
Vj6jKBF/hPJPnizkgwNecz2/+IuM/o7EoaADGwOAKj5dAXcOOAYNQ1LLAbjyDHco
g72spybJJ90VjA4NcDTZfmoNLJXsorJ7edzIfN1DyZ1b99uDnO2olU3ma7x37gNY
hVUU8PA2sMOnONUPu1q77KpZhwHdobb3MNCJm0Ac7VkQu1RmDJ/dpQ==
=IgvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Ashton Gray

Hi Ashton,

Are you the author of the Usenet posts - or did you use these as the basis of your investigations - or were the broadly similar works arrived at independently? (guess where my money's going?)

The one thing that bothers me about the whole scenario as outlined - why was it necessary for the showtrials, the removal of a President, the elaborate scheming and subterfuge all in the name of contract 8473??

I haven't been able to ascertain why this contract couldn't have been entered into without the fanfare of Watergate and whilst obviously an important development it, to my mind at least, seems to be undeserving of the vast charade used to mask it's inception. It is these last points which have caused me most consternation when trying to reconcile the events you've described so comprehensively.

I hope you can help

Gary

My source has never claimed he was the original Deep Throat. My own views on the identity of Deep Throat can be found here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4001

I have remarked elsewhere on this site that I have, for some time, considered it more than interesting that Watergate conspirator, Howard Hunt (using the pen name David St. John), wrote three espionage thrillers with a strong Satanic/occult theme. The Coven and Diabolus for example, were published in 1971 and therefore were contemporary with the Watergate/Nixon period.

This has always left a question mark in my mind. The foregoing alleged connection to RV and RI provides an intriguing glimpse of what may have been an underlying motive for these books. This obviously is no more than speculation on my part, but ordinarily one wouldn’t expect a man of Hunt’s background to be at all familiar with Satanic lore etc.

However, as interesting as it is, I like Gary also cannot see why surreptitious use of RV/RI would have to result in the removal of Nixon…

Personally, I think it is well worth analysing the occasional irruption of highly charged and emotive language (when compared to the balance of the post) in the Usenet postings, which strongly suggests a personal connection to the matters under discussion.

Perhaps you’re right Gary in your suspicion concerning the true identity of the Usenet poster?

David

Is it imitation being the sincerest form of flattery or art reflecting the artist or great minds thinking alike.

Fictions don't have "correct answers."
Fiction does not produce evidence
Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail.

If you want to speculate about my being every pseudonymous character up to and possibly including the Lone Ranger and Spiderman, you'll have to get in line. Maybe you came in too late for the local Kangaroo Court to try me and convict me of being the author of the original Wikipedia article on the alleged "First Break-In" that was systematically sabotaged until it was back to "The Official Story."

Meanwhile, "The Real Deep Throat" (hereinafter TRDT) and I have considerably divergent opinions about who the Chief Black Hat and Bottle-Whizzer in this drama is. TRDT seems to have it bad for Liddy, and it seems to be personal. E. Howard Hunt is given a bit part in the TRDT posts, whereas there is no question in my mind that Hunt was the primary agent in the field in charge of all things Watergate. Personally, I believe Liddy had been saddled and braced by CIA and put under the charge of Hunt primarily because of Liddy's self-admitted willingness—even eagerness—to do murder.

TRDT also goes on in several places about Liddy being a hack fiction writer, when clearly Hunt is the credentialed hack fiction writer (adjectives chosen with malice aforethought). Whereas Liddy is the one who dictated the so-called logs/summaries/verbatim transcripts (like, what-ever) that Sally Harmony typed up, I personally have no doubt whatsoever that the script for what Liddy dictated did not originate with Liddy, and almost certainly was written by Hunt in conjunction with CIA and their think-tank fantasy weavers.



Well, I certainly don't have all the answers and don't pretend to. That said, there also is no question in my mind about the extreme scope of intelligence agency pursuit of mind control of every possible description during that period in history, and to minimize its importance—whether one agrees that it should have been that important or not—is something I consider a grand mistake.

I also believe that what took place during Watergate is convolutedly connected to the JFK assassination in terms of personnel—including Nixon. I believe that there were many forces and undercurrents at play, including "who had what dirt on whom" in that regard.

I also believe that Nixon was far too materialistic ever to get behind any "paranormal hocus pocus" [not a Nixon quote; just my attempt at a "Nixonization"] as any serious military intelligence pursuit, and that he represented a major impediment to CIA plans. This letter to Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger on Friday, 19 May 1972, the day before Nixon left for his trip to the USSR, is revealing:

"The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat.

"We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented." —Richard Nixon excerpted from a 19 May 1972 letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig.

Perhaps I should mention that exactly one week later, while Nixon was abroad, the infamous Ameritas dinner was held at the Watergate, launching the party-hearty weekend of the purported "first break-in."



Well, the alternative is this: take it as a matter of faith that the cataclysmic events of Watergate and the pervasive involvement of CIA-connected personnel in those events constituted merely an unfortunate coincidence to the CIA's simultaneous tooling up of their blackest and most secret covert program, whose pro forma beginning with contract 8473 was just two weeks after indictments had been handed down on the Watergate burglars on Friday, 15 September 1972.

And there are card-carrying members of the Church of Coincidenceology right here in this forum who will pound the pulpit and preach that very sermon.

Ashton

I never said, and certainly never meant to imply, that your anonymous source had said he/she/it was the "original" Deep Throat.

It would be impossible for me to imply any such thing, since I've made it clear that my view is that there never was an "original" Deep Throat at all, any more than there ever was a "first break-in."

I was using the generic "Deep Throat." You know, the way Southerners use "Coke" for soda pop of every description.



An excellent thread pregnant with insightful analysis.

Ashton

When a friend of mine who frequents some usenet groups started sending me the posts of TRDT I admit that I was was struck and very favorably impressed by "Fictions don't have 'correct answers'" and "Fiction does not produce evidence."

My own "Fiction doesn't leave a paper trail," though, is far more pithy and trenchant.

Ashton

Gary, I would argue that sometimes fiction is dripping with factual content, albeit eclipsed from general view.

I also noted Ashton's response to your question about the identity of the Usenet poster:

Quote

If you want to speculate about my being every pseudonymous character up to and possibly including the Lone Ranger and Spiderman, you'll have to get in line.

Unquote

An evasive reply if ever there was one. It's the sort of question that, if incorrect, is easy-peasy to deny outright -- which begs the question why Ashton declined that option.

Mysteries eh. Don't you love 'em.

David

It truly matters not to me if Ashton is the Lone Ranger, in fact, I'd be disappointed, to say the least, if he were; even more so if he was really plain old Ashton Gray . Ashton's signature has always been, at times, confusing to me and when I seen the above(first 2) lines in the posts of TRDT - the resonance with the signature was immediate. Ashton seems to have met my queries as they were directed - with a smile.

I do find Ashton and the work he has presented both mysterious and intriguing (in a good way and yes I do love a mystery). It is positively a new way of looking at and thinking about events. His writing is first class and is eclipsed only by the diligence of his research and that of the many elves who work equally as diligently providing supporting data. Like you David, Ashton has met my (naive at times) questions with an unflinching resolve to provide the best informative answers and always in good faith and with humour.

The one irksome fact remains; whilst I'm content that the events were not coincidental; was the vast stage called Watergate really necessary to cover the instantiation of a class of mind control? Was the RV contract really the blackest and most covert CIA operation? I might have to do some reading before my next set of daft questions!!!!! Until then Hi ho Silver, away.

For your RV/RI reading:

http://www.philipcoppens.com/starconundrum.html

The author, Philip Coppens, has an especial interest (as do I) in the Priory of Sion story -- allegedly another intelligence operation. He likewise is interested in the subject of UFOs, mind control and the occult -- and other intelligence related operations.

They're not nearly as "sexy" as 911 JFK, Watergate etc., but they do pack a knock-down powerful and unique punch. And I warrant that they are more meaningful in the long term than any of the others. Perhaps it's a case of watching the puppet show on the stage rather than looking at the shadows behind the curtain to see how and why the strings are being pulled.

Coppens has never written about WWII black gold mind you, although he is associated with numerous people who have a deep and abiding interest in that subject. And they in his interests.

I wonder why that is?

The foregoing is completely extraneous rambling btw. Naturally.

David

[quote name='Ashton Gray' date='Oct 12 2007, 09:45 PM' post='122316']
This is the sixth and last message of "The Real Deep Throat" in usenet, What Sally Harmony Saw, posted

The reason they corroborated each other, lied for each other, went to jail for penney-ante crimes, and defrauded the entire world is because they were providing themselves with alibis for those fateful last days of May 1972 in order to cover up their REAL crimes committed then - crimes far more vicious, far more heinous, far more odious, shocking, and abhorrent than anything ever uncovered in all the endless annals of Watergate.


Ashton:
Does the poster believe -(if you know) -and do you believe that the Watergate gang corroborated each other, lied for each other etc. because of what some believe occurred Memerial Day weekend? That being the kidnap (murder?) of Ron Hubbard and the theft of his intellectual property by Ingo Swann, and others? Is it the belief that all of Watergate is truly about this event?

(Sorry if this sounds like a stupid question).

Dawn



.

Hi Dawn,

Forgive me for butting in. That is not a stupid question it is one of the key questions to my mind. In essence that is the point, lest you believe in coincidences, we are at.

Regarding theft and murder, I imagine the specifics are left to ourselves to realise - I don't think there'll be a CIA memo appearing anytime soon.

Hope you don't mind the interruption

Gary

Hi Dawn. As Gary Loughran has already opined, that is not a stupid question at all.

Of course I can't speak for "The Real Deep Throat" (TRDT) or what he/she/it believed or didn't believe, and even to address your question I have to uncharacteristically untether myself from my usual berth in the safe harbor of documented fact and sail out onto the stormy waters of all-engines-full speculation, straight into gale-force headwinds. It is adventurous indeed. But I do want to try to give you the best answer I can muster up.

In doing so, I hope to at least begin to barely touch upon Gary's earlier Zen-like question:



Before I leave port on this cruise into pea-soup fog and heavy seas, though, I first want to point out the solid fact that none of the posts of TRDT mention L. Ron Hubbard or his intellectual property anywhere at all.

We're now out into open choppy dark waters, visibility near zero, and most of the things I'm about to say are pure speculation and are subject to change at any instant by virtue of new data or new analysis of existing data. If we happen to run into an actual fact bobbing like flotsam in the high seas, I'll be sure and point it out.

Let me restate your question as relevant only to me and what I think:



My short answer is "no". The long answer is long indeed, and all of it will not be in this post. But I will say that the evidence I have seen in the Remote Viewing Timeline and other places, when compared to the 2004 messages of "The Real Deep Throat" (who doesn't mention Hubbard at all), tend to build, in my mind, a very compelling circumstantial case that the permanent neutralization of Hubbard was an essential prerequisite to CIA's Technical Services Division contract #8473 on 1 October 1972 using three highly trained Scientologists to create their top-secret Remote Viewing program.

That doesn't mean by any stretch that my position is, or ever has been, that "all of Watergate is truly about this event."

Now hold on to the railing—the perfect storm of speculation is dead ahead. Because I further believe:

1. That some combination of the CIA's most infamous Watergate "assets"—including but not necessarily limited to E. Howard and Dorothy Hunt and James McCord—had guilty knowledge in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and, furthermore,

2. That their guilty knowledge was used as the stick to ensure their cooperation in everything that Watergate was used to accomplish for CIA, and, furthermore,

3. That while they, themselves, were under a form of blackmail, they were made to appear to be blackmailers of Nixon, and, furthermore,

4. That Richard Nixon knew the actual reason for the Bay of Pigs operation and why E. Howard Hunt and his CIA co-conspirators insured that it was the resounding flop that it was, and, furthermore,

5. That Richard Nixon had uncertain partial knowledge that he could not prove of CIA complicity in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and, furthermore,

6. That Nixon despised L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology and never would have permitted the establishment of the Remote Viewing program the way it was set up by CIA two weeks after the Watergate indictments came down and all klieg lights were pointed straight at the White House.

In support of just #6 above, allow me to invite your attention to the following issuance of L. Ron Hubbard in a Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin dated 24 April 1960:

HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex

HCO BULLETIN OF 24 APRIL 1960

CONCERNING THE CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENCY

A person named Richard M. Nixon will enter his name this Fall at a convention as a citizen aspiring to the Presidency of the United States. Many Scientologists think he is all right because I once quoted him. This is very far from the facts and I hasten to give you the real story why Richard M. Nixon must be prevented at all costs from becoming president.

Two years ago in Washington this man's name appeared in a newspaper article as uttering an opinion about psychology. I called attention to this opinion as a matter of banal interest in an article.

Shortly two members of the United States Secret Service, stating they had been sent directly by Nixon, entered the establishment of the Founding Church of Washington, D.C., armed with pistols, but without warrant or formal complaint, and with foul and abusive language threatened the girls on duty there.

Hulking over desks, shouting violently they stated that they daily had to make such calls on "lots of people" to prevent Nixon's name from being used in ways Nixon disliked.

These two men stated they were part of Nixon's office and were acting on his express orders. They said that Nixon believed in nothing the Founding Church or Scientology stood for.

Their conduct before the ladies present was so intolerable that Mary Sue, having heard the shouting and curses from her office, had to come and force these men to leave, which they finally did, but only after she threatened to call the police.

As Scientologists were present, much information was obtained, of course, from these agents as to their routine activities. These were not creditable. Nixon constantly used the service against the voteless and helpless people of Washington to suppress the use of his name.

I am informing you of an exact event. It convinced me that in my opinion Nixon is not fitted to be a president. I do not believe any public figure has a right to suppress the use of his name in articles. I do not believe a public figure should enforce his will on writers or organizations by use of the Secret Service. I believe a democracy ceases to exist when deprived of freedom of speech. I do not believe any man closely connected with psychiatry should hold a high public office since psychiatry has lent its violence to political purposes.

Would you please write your papers and tell your friends that Nixon did this and that his actions against private people in Washington cause us to defy his cravings to be president.

It's my hope you'll vote and make your friends vote. But please don't vote for Nixon. Even his own Secret Service agents assure us he stands for nothing we do.

I do not tell you this because Mary Sue came close to serious injury at Nixon's hands. I tell you this because I think psychiatry and all Fascist-Commie forces have had their day.

We want clean hands in public office in the United States. Let's begin by doggedly denying Nixon the presidency no matter what his Secret Service tries to do to us now in Washington. It is better, far better, for us to run the risk of saying this now, while there's still a chance, than to fail to tell you of it for fear of reprisals and then be wiped out without defence by the Secret Service or other agency if Nixon became president. He hates us and has used what police force was available to him to say so. So please get busy on it. I am only telling a few friends.

L. RON HUBBARD

In regard to point #6 above, I rest my case.

With the rest of my speculation standing as such, I also would like to direct your attention to something that SunTzu wrote in "The Art of War":

All warfare is based on deception.

Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

I know of no better description of what I believe Richard Helms and the CIA in conjunction with its counterpart organizations both in the United States and in the Commonwealth did in 1972 on several fronts at once.

Without great specificity in this rather broad-stroked post, I hope I have begun, at least, to give some inkling of a few of the fronts and strategic purposes—from the viewpoint of CIA, assuming your stomach will stand taking the viewpoint of such criminal cruds—that I believe were involved with and served by the fraud known as Watergate.

But this still leaves unanswered the seminal question of whether some part of the CIA-connected Watergate criminals actually were somewhere else in the world over Memorial Day weekend 1972 permanently neutralizing L. Ron Hubbard.

Of course I don't have the answer. I do remain on record and in lock-step accord with "The Real Deep Throat" and others that there was no "first break-in" at the Watergate over Memorial Day weekend 1972. And it does seem that L. Ron Hubbard did disappear that same weekend—even though a considerable effort was made by a small and odd group of people, every one of them from Commonwealth countries, by the way, to keep up appearances that Hubbard was still alive but "in hiding."

As for where Hunt, Liddy, McCord, and Baldwin actually were and what they actually were doing that weekend, as Gary already so sagely has pointed out, "I don't think there'll be a CIA memo appearing anytime soon."

In lieu of that, I'll bring this short but white-knuckled cruise into a hurricane of speculation to a close with reference to a meeting that took place on or about 24 February 1972, just three months before Memorial Day weekend 1972. It was a meeting between G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, and a "retired" CIA doctor who Liddy says was introduced to him by Hunt as "Dr. Edward Gunn."

Their discussion was about various methods for surreptitiously drugging a person, but developed into a conversation about the real purpose of the meeting: ways of murdering someone undetectably.

To read Liddy's long drawn-out account of this meeting in his miserably autobiographical book "Will" is to realize one is reading the tortured screed of a homicidal maniac attempting to justify his thirst for an excuse to murder.

And who does Liddy claim they were contemplating murdering?

Liddy closes his feverish six pages of homicidal musings this way:

"...Were I...given the instruction from an appropriate officer of the government, I would kill Phillip Agee if it were demonstrated (as it has often been argued) that his revelations have led directly to the death of at least one of his fellow CIA officers, that he intended to continue the revelations, and that they would lead to more deaths. Notice that this killing would not be retributive but preventive. It is the same rationale by which I was willing to obey an order to kill Jack Anderson. But I would do so only after satisfying myself that it was: a ) an order from legitimate authority; b ) a question of malum prohibitum; and c ) a rational response to the problem.

...If Hunt's principal was worried, I had the answer.

"Tell him," I said, "if necessary, I'll do it." —G. Gordon Liddy Will

Now, it's fine with me if anyone wants to believe the utterly psychotic notion that the person Liddy and Hunt were plotting the murder of that day was a nationally famous columnist.

I don't.

And while I almost surely have not answered your question satisfactorily, I at least have brought you safely back to the dock. Watch your step.

Ashton

I invite you to search the length, width, and breadth of the oh-so-celebrated mid-1970s Congressionally-staged "exposés" of and "confessions" about the dirty deeds of CIA, including the Rockefeller dog-and-pony show and the vaunted Church Committee—held when the RV program was already three years into operation—and tell me how much you find about the black RV program that during those hearings was being run from the very shadow of the United States Capitol building where the dourly disapproving congressmen sat stinking up tax-bought chairs and decrying CIA hanky-panky.

Let me save you a whole lot of time: you won't find a syllable about it.

Does that answer your question?

Ashton

Yes. I'll also add for clarity - I give due importance to the work you've presented and in no way am I trying to lessen said importance by questioning the assertion; it's an aside to the main subject.

However, generally, I'm left to ponder what else exists that we know nothing about in the realm of all things CIA...things deeper and blacker perhaps..what exactly, I don't know. Can't even guess!! I'll not wrack what little brain I have any further on the subject.

Another question(s) -
Was the allusion to Scientologists/RV made by TRDT, the first time this occurred in relation to Watergate (that you are aware of)?

TRDT makes a strong case in the topic area of each post, ,mainly, though, to say that people didn't do what they said they did - nothing is offered as to why this should be the case. The Watergate fictions are disassembled and it seems nothing remains, not even motive...

The only inkling of something else at play is, of course, the odd footnote tantalisingly dropped by TRDT, which (if the answer to the above question is positive) you have made remarkable progress in giving substantial meaning to.

Nixon had disputes with lots of people. I cannot see the significance of this particular dispute. On your timeline you state:

Monday, 13 April 1953
CIA's Richard Helms
CIA Director Allen Dulles authorizes a new expanded mind-control program, MK-ULTRA, brainchild of Richard Helms, a high-ranking member of CIA's Clandestine Services. E. Howard Hunt is working at CIA headquarters at the time as a "chief of covert operations" under Clandestine Services.

My research suggests that MK-ULTRA was a Allen Dulles/Donald Ewen Cameron project. Dulles was first given the idea by Cameron when he was working for him at the OSS during the Second World War. In 1943 Cameron went to Canada and established the psychiatry department at Montreal's McGill University and director of the newly-created Allan Memorial Institute. It was here that the first mind-control experiments began.

See the following:

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKcameronDE.htm

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10798

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9208

"That Richard Nixon knew the actual reason for the Bay of Pigs operation and why E. Howard Hunt and his CIA co-conspirators insured that it was the resounding flop that it was[.]"

Ashton,

You are quite correct to understand the Bay of Pigs affair as a "perfect failure." As such, it stands both as a template for subsequent, similar operations (up to and including the invasion of Iraq, whose happy collaterals, like those in Cuba, somehow unexpectedly failed to welcome the invaders as liberators), and as a Rosetta Stone of sorts for the deciphering of a wide variety of secret agendas and methods.

Charles

Charles, this is a theme about which I could write a book. (Wait a minute: in fact, I am writing a book about it.)

I don't want to go too far off into this theme in this particular thread, and it likely deserves its own (if you start it, I'll be there), so all I'll say at the moment is that to read Hunt's "Undercover" and Liddy's "Will" is to marvel that either of them ever got their pants on right-side out. To hear them tell it, it's The Three Stooges Do Political Espionage. Nothing they started ever was finished, and if it was "finished" somehow, it was a complete disaster. And of course the reason is because nothing they claimed they were doing ever was what they actually were doing, so of course none of it ever went anywhere.

Ashton

Hi, Gary.

We still got to pull this taffy apart a little bit. As I said in response to Dawn (who seemed to have the same misapprehension) "The Real Deep Throat" (TRDT) never said anything at all about either Scientology or Scientologists (as such) or L. Ron Hubbard.

TRDT does make an allusion to Hunt and Liddy in relation to CIA's Cleve Backster and Ingo Swann—but never mentions that Swann was a Scientology OT.

TRDT does, in the last message, name both Hal Puthoff and Ingo Swann—but never mentions that both of them were Scientology OTs.

TRDT does point a long bony finger at CIA's Remote Viewing operation as being significantly connected to the Watergate fraud, but never says anything specific about Scientology being a part of it, or about the possibility of the kidnap and/or murder of L. Ron Hubbard having been the actual skulduggery afoot that was being covered up by the Memorial Day weekend Circus of Impossibilities.

TRDT does say that the Watergate principals actually were doing some very dirty work that weekend instead of monkeying around with Cubans at the Watergate. Was it wet work? TRDT doesn't say, but a reference to "the chair" seems to imply strongly that it was not penny-ante.

I hope that lays to rest any further confusion about TRDT having mentioned Scientology or Scientologist per se, because he/she/it did not. TRDT did (correctly) name two Scientology OTs who were central to the CIA's black program, but did not identify them as being Scientology OTs.

Having said all of that, I have to answer that as far as I know, the messages of "The Real Deep Throat" are, indeed, the first time a connection was made between the CIA's top secret Remote Viewing program and what we know as "Watergate." My own personal belief is that TRDT was leaving it to others to finish connecting the dots, and by the time the messages of TRDT appeared, lots of those dots already existed and were connected.

In order to insure that my last sentence above does not sit as a complete mystery, I have started a new topic in this forum: Press Releases of The Public Research Foundation.

That series of investigative reports came out in 1997, and as far as I can determine (so far), represent the first indication of the connection between Scientology and CIA's Remote Viewing program.

That predates the messages of "The Real Deep Throat" by seven years.



I can't say that I agree with you from my reading.

I find that TRDT scattered bread crumbs throughout the messages leading to CIA's Remote Viewing program as the underlying motivation.

I also find that TRDT says very bluntly and blatantly that the elaborate Memorial Day weekend idiocies "confessed" to by the perps were told only, as Dawn quoted, "to cover up their REAL crimes committed then - crimes far more vicious, far more heinous, far more odious, shocking, and abhorrent than anything ever uncovered in all the endless annals of Watergate."

I also find that TRDT revisits this theme of a cover-up (the CIA's) wrapped in a false cover-up (purportedly Nixon's and CReeP's):

"GEMSTONE was not an intelligence operation: it was only a COVER for a major intelligence operation." —The Real Deep Throat

I'll give you this: the monolith in 2001: A Space Odessey ain't nothin' compared to this Watergate-Remote Viewing mess. Hell, that only had six sides. Encountering this is more like bumping into a star-sized one of these floating in space:





I invite you to read the press releases of The Public Research Foundation, and I believe you will find yourself staring deeply into other colorful facets of this giant mystery. But no matter how confusing the facets might at first seem, just as with the Great Rhombicuboctahedra above, they all, indeed, are connected.

Ashton

Without wishing to detract in any slightest way from the focus on Ewen Cameron's butchery and its influence on the development of CIA's atrocities in relation to mind control, my primary source for characterizing MK/ULTRA as having been "the brainchild of Richard Helms" is a Church Committee report with the windy title of "94TH Congress, 2d Session Senate Report No. 94-755, Foreign and Military Intelligence, Book I, Final Report of the Select Committee To Study Govermental Operation With Respect To Intelligence Activities, which says in pertinent part:

MKULTRA began with a proposal from the Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, Richard Helms, to the DCI, outlining a special funding mechanism for highly sensitive CIA research and development projects that studied the use of biological and chemical materials in altering human behavior. The projects involved:

"Research to develop a capability in the covert use of biological and chemical materials. This area involves production of various physiological conditions which could support present or future clandestine operations. Aside from the offensive potential, the development of a comprehensive ability in this field of covert chemical and biological warfare gives us a thorough knowledge of the enemy's theoretical potential, thus enabling us to defend ourselves against a foe who might not be as restrained in the use of these techniques as we are."

MKULTRA was approved by the DCI on April 13, 1953 along the lines proposed by ADDP Helms.

The actual "brainchild" language pursuant to the above is attributable to Martin Lee and Bruce Shlain in their book (which has almost as windy a title), "Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, the Sixties, and Beyond."

Ashton

Hi Ashton,

Point taken and understood. I would like to point out that I used the word allusion with reference to Scientologists (not Scientlogy) with consideration. Mentioning Swann in the way that TRDT does makes little sense - until one realises who Swann was and what he brought to the table of RV - unless one considers it to be an indirect or implied reference. To reiterate, though, point taken and understood.

Now off to this other thread to, likely, be taxed ( a pun? ) and vexed further.


Gary

[Very, very small]>>> Oh.

Heh. Sorry, Gary: didn't mean to beat you senseless with something you already understood. I see now how you were using "allusion" in perfectly proper sense and reference.

Maybe just as well, though, that the point has been put up in neon lights for any who follow and might not understand the subtlety. My opinion is that TRDT probably knew very well what he/she/it was actually pointing a long bony finger toward in the allusions to Swann and Puthoff, so your choice of "allusion" was le mot juste.

Since I'm here, though, and have done my mea culpas for gross overclarification, I think I'm going to take this opportunity to post to this thread two anonymous messages that appeared in several usenet groups in April 2004, about three months after the series posted by "The Real Deep Throat." I've been iffy about posting them because there are some very large assertions in them, many of which have no independent confirmation or documentation whatsoever that I am aware of. On the other hand, they also contain pointers to names and events that decidedly have borne fruit in my own continuing research.

However, between the two messages—the second being a response to the first—they reflect obliquely at times and very directly at other times on the same issues and events that are express or implied in the "Real Deep Throat" series. So here goes, for what it's worth.

This first message, called "28th May 1972," was posted in several usenet newsgroups on 6 April 2004:

From: Frog <FrogRemailer@bigfoot.com>
Message-ID: <OSQARPQ938083.49375@Gilgamesh-Frog.org>
Subject: 28th May 1972
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Date: 6 Apr 2004 11:52:38 +0100
Comments: This message probably did not originate from the above address. It was automatically remailed by one or more anonymous mail services.

Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was taken out on 28th May 1972 by agents working for and with American Central Intelligence under the direction of Richard Helms. The staging area was Morocco. American and Moroccan government assets, transportation and logistics were utilised in the job. CIA assets were assisted by two United States Special Forces agents who had been tasked earlier in Viet Nam for the operation and subsequently had been insinuated into the Scientology organisation in positions close to Hubbard, plus a third distanced from the task. Also assisting were CIA-placed embassy personnel in Morocco, Madrid and Copenhagen, as well as several operatives of the Commonwealth in mission-critical positions within the Scientology organisation.

The job was architected to coincide with the international focus provided by Richard Nixon's trip to Moscow. Because of the extreme nature of the international crime an alibi for the dates surrounding 28th May 1972 was planned and provided by CIA to its senior assets involved in the Hubbard task. The alibi was accomplished using a group of Cuban CIA operatives and served the collateral purpose of eliminating a political figure who would have encumbered CIA plans for the aftermath of the operation.

The alibi for the mission dates relied on self- and mutually-incriminating testimony by the Cubans and by the senior CIA assets concerning more minor illegal activities far away from the staging area where the senior CIA assets had in fact been on and around 28th May 1972, carrying out the Hubbard mission. In order that the alibi be impenetrable it led, as planned, to the conviction of the Cubans, and of the senior CIA assets as well, on criminal charges with minimal penalties under conditions prearranged by Helms et al. All eventually were compensated for their trouble, some of them handsomely. CIA control of the legal matters was coordinated through Gall, Lane, Powell & Kilcullen (later Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP).

To commemorate for themselves their successful operation, which culminated in the termination of Hubbard, the principals arranged through Meade Emory of Lane Powell to have the Church of Spiritual Technology incorporated on the tenth anniversary of the task, 28th May 1982, in order that the corporation be final and sole beneficiary of the Hubbard estate under their governance.

Persons still closely associated with intelligence and defence in the United States and even intimately related to the present administration were complicit in the planning and execution of the task itself as well as in the subsequent leveraging and exploitation of Hubbard's material in intelligence and defence programmes and activities internationally.

The second anonymous message, below, was posted on 10 April 2004 in response to the one above. This copy that was sent to me came from alt.politics. Our own Douglas Caddy is mentioned by the poster, along with quite a few other names. I have a note about the Caddy reference at the end:

From: Anonymous <BigappleRemailer@Optonline.Net>
Date: 10 Apr 2004 06:26:36 -0000
Message-ID: <QHFFN85438087.1018055556@anonymous>
Subject: Re: 28th May 1972
Newsgroups: alt.politics
References: <3c3b539a826d094f525209c0f1990c2f@mixmaster.it>
Comments: This message did not originate from the above address. It was remailed by two or more anonymous mail services.

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 George Orwell <nobody@mixmaster.it> wrote:

> Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was taken out on 28th May
> 1972 by agents working for and with American Central
> Intelligence under the direction of Richard Helms. The
> staging area was Morocco. American and Moroccan government
> assets, transportation and logistics were utilised in the
> job. CIA assets were assisted by two United States Special
> Forces agents who had been tasked earlier in Viet Nam for the
> operation and subsequently had been insinuated into the
> Scientology organisation in positions close to Hubbard,

Tabayoyon, Preston

> plus
> a third distanced from the task.

Aznaran, unless there was someone else

You know who did the tasking in Nam, don't you? Same dude who went to Japan and set up Gary Snyder to ghost "Hymn of Asia." (Snyder was thick with the raving psycho Burroughs who murdered his wife in Mexico and got away with it and helped club-foot set up the company's LSD experiments.) Then the same dude tripped the wire that set up "The Plumbers" under Krogh, an Emory buddy from Seattle. You going to take this all the way?

> Also assisting were
> CIA-placed embassy personnel in Morocco, Madrid and
> Copenhagen,

CIA'a Galbraith was part of that lot. Went by William and Jack. Entered the White House on June 16, 1971, on pretext of being one of the "officers of the White House News Photographers Association" who were having a meeting with Nixon that day. This was immediately after Liddy had been moved over to room 16 in the old Exec Office building with the CIA hotline and scrambler under Krogh and Young. Met with Liddy and less than a month later was in Safi Morocco meeting with Starkey and co. over the Meister murder ("suicide"), July 13,1971. Briefing them on what was coming down the pike really. Same day Hassan Deuce executed the leaders of the 1971 coup attempt on tv.

In the '72 Hubbard job Copenhagen was reporting to Pat Gray. Hoover had been taken out by Baldwin on May 2, 1972. Baldwin reported in to McCord the same day. Gray was put in to replace Hoover and was in the loop. McCord sent Baldwin north to Maryland to set up the Wallace hit for two weeks later, on May 15, because Wallace had to be gotten out of the picture or the Hubbard job couldn't go down. They blew it, but Wallace was hurt bad enough that he was out and the Hubbard op got a green light.

> as well as several operatives of the Commonwealth
> in mission-critical positions within the Scientology
> organisation.

Starkey, Kember, Urquhart, Armstrong, Laurel Watson, Kima whoever, Eltringham, Mayo, some others with deep cover.

> The job was architected to coincide with the international
> focus provided by Richard Nixon's trip to Moscow. Because of
> the extreme nature of the international crime an alibi for
> the dates surrounding 28th May 1972 was planned and provided
> by CIA to its senior assets involved in the Hubbard task. The
> alibi was accomplished using a group of Cuban CIA operatives
> and served the collateral purpose of eliminating a political
> figure who would have encumbered CIA plans for the aftermath
> of the operation.
>
> The alibi for the mission dates relied on self- and
> mutually-incriminating testimony by the Cubans and by the
> senior CIA assets concerning more minor illegal activities
> far away from the staging area where the senior CIA assets
> had in fact been on and around 28th May 1972, carrying out
> the Hubbard mission. In order that the alibi be impenetrable
> it led, as planned, to the conviction of the Cubans, and of
> the senior CIA assets as well, on criminal charges with
> minimal penalties under conditions prearranged by Helms et
> al. All eventually were compensated for their trouble, some
> of them handsomely.

The posts of "THE REAL DEEP THROAT" a few months ago blew that whole scam wide open. I read that I knew "uh-oh here we go."

> CIA control of the legal matters was
> coordinated through Gall, Lane, Powell & Kilcullen (later
> Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP).

One CIA asset from Gall, Lane, Powell & Kilcullen was Douglas Caddy, very thick with Robert Bennett and Hunt. Caddy was the hook-up to Emory who was connected with Lane Powell while legislation attorney for the Joint Committee on Taxation, which was the same time all this was going down. Emory started the tax litigation ball rolling on the Hubbard groups as soon as Hubbard was in the bag. He got paid off later with the Ass't. Commish job at IRS and ran the whole GO document gag for CIA from there.

> To commemorate for themselves their successful operation,
> which culminated in the termination of Hubbard, the
> principals arranged through Meade Emory of Lane Powell to
> have the Church of Spiritual Technology incorporated on the
> tenth anniversary of the task, 28th May 1982, in order that
> the corporation be final and sole beneficiary of the Hubbard
> estate under their governance.
>
> Persons still closely associated with intelligence and
> defence in the United States and even intimately related to
> the present administration were complicit in the planning and
> execution of the task itself as well as in the subsequent
> leveraging and exploitation of Hubbard's material in
> intelligence and defence programmes and activities
> internationally.

Bush Sr. was deep cover CIA doing the diplomat gig, and got bumped to US ambassador to the U.N. in '72 and was in the loop on the Hubbard job and the embassy traffic on it. So he later got bumped to DCI.

I never thought I'd see the lid come off this one. What I want to know is if Blair is blowing it open because of all the stink on Iraq now or if it's a lower leak. The Brits have their own stink on the Hubbard trick and I don't see the upside.

-=-
This message was posted via two or more anonymous remailing services.

About the Caddy reference: In June of last year, I asked Douglas Caddy about Meade Emory, and he replied: "I do not recognize the name of Meade Emory, and for that reason am unaware of any role that he played in whatever matter you apparently have in mind."

There are so many hints, clues, and pointers in the above two posts, when coupled with the messages of "The Real Deep Throat," and when further coupled with the press releases of the Public Research Foundation, that perhaps you can see why I likened it all to the Great Rhombicuboctahedra.

Just one of the events that really has made an indelible impression on me, though, is the 17 August 1972 brutal execution of Muhammad Oufkir, Defense Minister for Morocco—which of course was reported as a "suicide" in the wake of a failed assassination attempt on his boss, King Hussan II, in which Oufkir purportedly was the leader.

In case you're wondering if your eyes failed you, no, none of the messages of "The Real Deep Throat" or the two other posts in this message mention Oufkir by name or this event. It came out of subsequent research, pulling some of the strings whose loose ends hang out in all the above. If, in fact, Moroccon officials had been involved with CIA on such a black and wet operation in late May 1972 as is alleged in the first of the above two posts, it couldn't possibly have been done without Oufkir's participation and knowledge.

Of course the "attempt" on Hussan II (in which the attack planes had been loaded somehow with—wait for it—blanks) and Oufkir's "suicide" (in which he was shot repeatedly from behind, one bullet blowing out one of his eyes and his sunglasses, according to later revelations by an eyewitness) happened right in the middle of "Watergate," after the 17 June 1972 arrests, and almost exactly one month before the indictments were handed down on 15 September 1972.

Just days before Oufkir's "suicide," on 14 August 1972, representatives from CIA's Operational Technology Division (OTD) and Office of Research and Development (ORD) had been busy conducting experiments in extrasensory perception at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) with Scientology OT Ingo Swann under the oversight and coordination of Scientology OT Hal Puthoff. Swann's results were "so startlingly accurate" that the OTD and ORD representatives suggested that the work be continued and expanded. CIA's Sidney Gottlieb reviewed the data, approved another $2,500 work order, and "encouraged the development of a more complete research plan."

Then over in Morocco, Oufkir got his head mostly blown off for him.

I think I'll leave it there for now.

Ashton

Ashton,

Incredible as this may read, it is great to see that there phizzog on these screens, with apologies to Carl Sandburg. Le Chapeau is another matter. I've been conducting a little remote viewing of my own; you know, like, trying to envision what lies beneath said haberdashery. Truth to tell I see a type of email, er, signature. Yeah, that's it...a verrrrrry loooooong signature.

Now, to the matters at hand. As we've discussed, these cretins who create the plans and handle the other cretins are Master chess players with massive egos and are very sensitive to peer competition. One of their traits, perhaps the most notable, is always trying to one-up each other by accomplishing two or more missions with the same stone. I know; take my bio, please. A familiarity with the works of Victor Marchetti and David C. Martin will provide an appreciation of how and why people like Jesus James Angleton self destructed into sheer madness. It will also give insight into the mindset of Langley.

"Silent Coup:..." and "Secret Agenda:..." were both great books. Somebody's recent posting pooh-poohed the former and added that there was someting they missed, or something was missing, etc. Hougan, on the other hand was very close, apparently, and I apologize for the simplistic nutshell here. He decided to examine the break-in (6/17/72) itself and alluded to things that his investigative expertise regarding the CIA had pushed him towards (As somewhat of an aside, I'll note here that he also referred to the smuggling of gold bullion to Vietnam: first as it involved Mr. Pennington and the second referral involving Nixon. He also seemed to have more than an inkling about the George Wallace assassination attempt. Unfortunately, he didn't want to elaborate.). But in trying to nail down motive and the end game he ended up rationalizing while seemingly having nowhere else to go. Again, sorry for the precis.

Yes, something was missing. AND THIS IS IT, DAMMIT. That's why I jumped right into your corner after the first few dispatches next to that photo only a mother could love.

All The Best,
JG

p.s. I submitted a very nice, though dated, photo of me standing on a slip at Lake Tahoe, circa late Nineties. If we're able to post, see if you can make out the Fredo assassination in the background. But that's for another thread.

The hat is an innocent bystander. Leave the hat alone.

Always nice to see you wandering in these woods, too, JG.



[CUE RIM SHOT AND CYMBAL CRASH]

If you're going to steal somebody's material, John, surely you can do better than Henny Youngman.

Yes, the Ivy League set does seem to like its larceny in layers. I think they must have been fans of 3D chess.



Hougan's work is brilliant and a tireless source of inspiration. But, yes, something was missing. An interesting sidelight is that the information in this and the related threads does not conflict with Hougan in any terribly significant way, and owes him a debt of gratitude.



She had much better hats.

Ashton

AG: "Hougan's work is brilliant and a tireless source of inspiration. But, yes, something was missing. An interesting sidelight is that the information in this and the related threads does not conflict with Hougan in any terribly significant way, and owes him a debt of gratitude."

JG: I quite agree.

AG: "The hat is an innocent bystander. Leave the hat alone."

JG: Must be a fog hat, to ward off that 'burdensome fog', after all.



Quote from Roger Morris Forward in "Silent Coup...": "...a sentient public scarcely exists."

JG

_________________________________________________

Charles,

Very insightful and well put. Thank you. Especially the "template for subsequent, similar operations..." I wish that more world citizens simply would think through these things with the use of a good, healthy skepticism. It's really not hard once you're on to them; the mindset being that they're not exactly looking out for our best interests.

On this score, here is Mr. Simkin from 11/06: "The right-wing cabal that organized the assassination of JFK did not get the overthrow of Castro. However, they did get something very important out of the deal. The continuance of the Cold War. This after all is what the Military Industrial Complex wanted out of the assassination. In fact, the existence of a communist government so close to the United States helped to fuel the paranoia that was the life-blood of American foreign policy."

Veritas Tu Liberabit,
Yours Truly,
John Gillespie

John,

As I've previously noted, Castro as a cash-generating, power-petuating (for the killers of Kennedy) hemispheric bogeyman was, and is, far more valuable alive than dead.

Good to know that kindred spirits haunt these pages.

Your middle name isn't Birks, is it?

Charles

__________________________________________

Ha. Only the truly hip or truly elderly or thoroughly Gillespie know the meaning of that one. You, on the other hand, must be related to the former Red Sox reliever Dick Drago who yielded a game winning infield single to Cincinnati Shortstop Dave Concepcion in game 2 of the famous 1975 World Series, perhaps the greatest ever played. Bill Lee had them on the ropes that day and it slipped away, as it did in game 7. Go Sox.

Speaking of the greatest, that quote from Our Leader about Nixon and the Bay of Pigs may be his best since I've been wandering these woods, as Ashton would say.

But isn't it great to be able to have acquaintanceship, however cybernetic, with those who actually reveal truths about these great issues? Welcome aboard. Remember, it's all chess.

JG (middle name is Arkins; I met Diz once and said nothing as I showed him my drivers license. He heaved up and down while laughing after I opined that we weren't related. Had to be there...a heard melody is sweeter, after all.)

In my alternate life as a jazz critic, educator, and concert/festival producer, I was blessed on many occasions to spend time with Diz.

Good to make the cyber acquaintance of his namesake.

Charles

Ah Fredo, you broke my heart.

"How do you say 'banana daiquiri'?"