Wikipedia’s Big-Brother Doublethink Brigade Censors and Bans “Watergate: The Hoax”

Sunday, 17 December 2017 by

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
― George Orwell, 1984

We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
—William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence

It has recently been brought to our attention that on 15 May 2017, a Wikipedia user named Celestia Jung made major, significant edits to Wikipedia’s “Watergate scandal” page. Before Jung’s edits, much of the page was pure fiction, a regurgitation of the same lame “Official Story” of Watergate that is hopelessly full of holes, lies, and impossible contradictions—all of them exposed for what they are in Ashton Gray’s Watergate: The Hoax.

According to Wikipedia’s own records of the change-history of the article, Celestia Jung added 26 references as citations in the article, and laid out an exceptionally well-researched and factually accurate account of facts about Watergate that—unfortunately for Watergate disinformation specialists—blow the “Official Story” to shreds. The added references included, for example, vitally important FBI documents, Congressional testimony, and legal depositions. Among the references, Jung also included citations to Gray’s 600-page groundbreaking exposé, Watergate: The Hoax. That book alone contains almost 500 citations to crucial government documents and private papers, some of them never before published.

The pack of disinformation jackals at Wikipedia completely eradicated Celestia Jung’s edits, censored and banned Watergate: The Hoax as a source, and then threatened to ban Celestia Jung’s account.

Because of the importance of the incontrovertible facts we have found to have been laid out in Celestia Jung’s edits and additions to the Wikipedia “Watergate scandal” page, we are going to reproduce it here just as it appeared on Wikipedia, including the citations and references. NOTE: Because of problems in the conversion process from the Wikipedia version to this blog software, we have renumbered the footnotes in order to include only those germane to the section that Celestia Jung had edited:

Break-ins and wiretaps at the DNC’s Watergate headquarters

The “Gemstone” plans

In early 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, having recently been appointed as Finance Counsel for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), presented three different versions of a campaign intelligence plan, seeking approval and funding from CRP. E. Howard Hunt, a veteran of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency who was working as a “consultant” to the White House at the time, aided Liddy in his presentations. Liddy and Hunt gave the plans a code name: “Gemstone.” Whether any version of the plan was approved has been contested in sworn testimony by those involved, and no documented proof of any approval ever has been in evidence.[1][2][3]:393-403

Gemstone 1

On Thursday, 27 January 1972, Liddy made his first Gemstone presentation to CRP’s Acting Chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean. It involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. According to the CIA, Liddy, at the time, was under “special clearances” from the CIA.[4] E. Howard Hunt arranged for the CIA to create elaborate charts used in Liddy’s presentation.[2] According to Dean, this marked “the opening scene of the worst political scandal of the twentieth century and the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency”.[5] Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic and refused to approve it.

Gemstone 2

The second Liddy presentation to Mitchell, Dean, and Magruder for proposed political intelligence activities was made on Friday, 4 February 1972, and the budget had been reduced to $500,000. Liddy has sworn under oath that the Democratic National Committee‘s (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C. was not a proposed target for any “surreptitious entry” or electronic surveillance in the 4 February 1972 proposal, or in any plan he ever submitted.[2] John Mitchell declined to approve the second proposal.[1]

Gemstone 3

In Congressional testimony, Magruder alleged that Mitchell approved a third version of Liddy’s plan on Thursday, 30 March 1972, while staying in Key Biscayne, Florida. Magruder also alleged that part of the plan was to break into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate—ostensibly to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. (Magruder later was convicted of and sentenced to jail for perjury.) Mitchell denied in sworn testimony that he ever approved any Liddy plan at all.[1] According to Liddy, Magruder alone, in a closed-door meeting in Magruder’s office at “the end of April” 1972, ordered him to organize a break-in at DNC headquarters to plant electronic “bugs” and to photograph documents.[2] Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation, but has since insisted that he was duped by Dean and at least two of his subordinates. These included former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, then-CRP Security Coordinator. (John Mitchell had by then resigned as Attorney General to become chairman of the CRP.)[6]

Set-up for “first break-in”

On or about Friday, 31 March 1972, James McCord placed a phone call to the Watkins-Johnson Company, Communications Electronics Incorporated (CEI) division, in Rockville, Maryland, to inquire about surveillance receivers. A salesman named John Bussler said that CEI had one like McCord wanted, a Receiving System Type RS-111-1B-12, but that it had to be refurbished, so McCord should call back in a few weeks.[7]

On Thursday, 20 April 1972, James McCord went to the Howard Johnson motel across the street from the Watergate complex and placed a deposit on room 419, which faced DNC headquarters. He reserved it in the name of his own company, McCord Associates, and said he would be back soon to actually book the dates he would have it.[8] The call to Watkins-Johnson and the deposit on room 419 were prior to the alleged closed-door meeting between Magruder and Liddy at the “end of April,” indicating that McCord already was planning an operation involving DNC headquarters at the Watergate before any order was issued for a break-in there.[3]:78-81

On Monday, 24 April 1972, McCord placed an order with Bell & Howell for four Kelcom III transceivers, or walkie-talkies. Although the walkie-talkies were ostensibly for security at the upcoming Republican National Convention, then planned for San Diego, California, McCord specified on the order frequencies for usage exclusively in Washington, D.C.[9] This is further evidence of McCord’s prior knowledge of plans for a clandestine operation in D.C.[3]:80-81

On Monday, 1 May 1972, McCord again called the Watkins-Johnson Company, CEI division, seeking information on the surveillance receiver he had called about earlier—which could be used to monitor electronic eavesdropping devices. He arranged with salesman Roy Scherrer to come pick it up soon and to pay cash for it.[10]

Later on 1 May, McCord placed a late-night phone call to a former FBI agent living in Connecticut named Alfred C. Baldwin III. McCord hired Baldwin sight-unseen, over the phone, offering Baldwin work in Washington, D.C., starting the following morning. McCord testified in Congress that he had selected Baldwin’s name from a registry published by the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI to work for CRP, but investigative reporter Jim Hougan has described Baldwin as “somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord.”[11]:135 Investigative author Ashton Gray says that the weight of evidence “supports the conclusion that Baldwin had been hand-selected well in advance by CIA.”[3]:34 Baldwin ultimately would be assigned by McCord to use the surveillance receiver McCord had arranged that day to purchase.

Baldwin arrived in D.C. the following morning, 2 May, and initially served as a bodyguard to Martha Mitchell, the wife of John Mitchell, who was living in Washington. Baldwin accompanied Mrs. Mitchell on a trip to the Midwest and to New York for six days.[3]:34-35 On Friday, 5 May, while Baldwin was away, McCord went back to the Howard Johnson and activated his deposit to rent room 419, giving an “in date” of 5 May, even though McCord had reserved it with a deposit over two weeks earlier.[3]:87

Baldwin returned to D.C. with Martha Mitchell on Monday, 8 May. On their return, Mrs. Mitchell described Baldwin as “the gauchest character I’ve ever met,”[11]:136 saying to her personal secretary that he was “pushy, vocal, and someone who would not stay in the background.”[12] McCord relieved Baldwin of bodyguard duties for Mrs. Mitchell, instructing him to stay in room 419 at the Howard Johnson’s motel across the street from the Watergate complex. According to records of the FBI, McCord was directly paying Baldwin in cash, as well as paying for the motel room. In a little over six weeks, McCord gave Baldwin cash amounts totaling at least $2,200—which in 2017 dollars is equivalent to over $12,800.[3]:75

On Wednesday, 10 May 1972, McCord traveled to Rockville, Maryland, where he purchased the CEI Receiving System Type RS-111-1B-12, serial number 132, from Watkins-Johnson Company, paying $3,500 in cash. (That is approximately $20,400 in 2017 dollars.) It is the only such receiver McCord bought. He described it in Congressional testimony as “a very sophisticated and complex receiver with what is called a very high degree of sensitivity; that is, it is capable of picking up very weak transmissions.” It could only pick up signals from one transmitter at a time.[4]

On Monday, 22 May 1972, six men from Miami arrived by plane in Washington, D.C. They had been “recruited” by Hunt and Liddy to carry out a mission in D.C. They were: Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martínez, Virgilio Gonzales, Frank Sturgis, Renaldo Pico, and Filipe DeDiego. They all were traveling under aliases.[13] All of them had at one time worked for the CIA. One of them, Gonzales, was actively on CIA payroll and had a CIA case officer in Miami that he reported to. Gonzales was a locksmith and had been “recruited” by Liddy and Hunt to pick locks.[3]:xvi-xvii[4]

The “first break-in” at DNC headquarters—Memorial Day weekend 1972

According to Congressional and court testimony by the perpetrators—much of it irreconcilably contradictory—three separate attempts were made to break in to DNC headquarters in the Watergate over Memorial Day weekend in 1972: 26, 27, and 28 May. The first two attempts ostensibly failed. The third attempt purportedly was successful.[11]:139-157

Friday, 26 May 1972: The “Ameritas dinner” break-in attempt

Baldwin claimed in his Congressional testimony that on 26 May, he drove from Hamden, Connecticut, where he had gone to pick up his car, to Washington, D.C.—a distance of about 300 miles (500 km)—returning to room 419 at the Howard Johnson motel across from the Watergate. From Baldwin’s testimony:

ALFRED BALDWIN: When I entered the room, there were numerous items of electronic equipment in the room. When I entered the room, it was approximately 2 in the afternoon, I believe, about that hour. Mr. McCord was in the room and operating one of the receiver units. At that time, I did not know what it was. He explained it.

— Alfred Baldwin testimony, U.S. Congress[14]

Baldwin went on to claim in testimony that Hunt and Liddy came to room 419 that afternoon, and McCord introduced them to each other. Baldwin also claimed that he was there at the motel that night with McCord when an alleged first attempt to break into the DNC headquarters took place.

Yet the FBI located an eyewitness who emphatically placed Baldwin 300 miles (500 km) away, in Hamden, Connecticut, that night, at a social event:

John S. Dantscher . . . said [that] on the evening of May 26, 1972, he and his wife attended a social gathering at the home of Walter Walsh, 126 Bedford Avenue, Hamden, Connecticut, which was also attended by Walsh’s mother, Alfred Baldwin, and John Dantscher’s mother. During this social affair Baldwin presented Dantscher and his wife with photographs taken at their wedding.

— SAs Emmett J. Michaels and SA Robert C. Puckett, Federal Bureau of Investigation[15]

During re-interview . . . Dantscher again referred to personal date book and confirmed date of social affair as May 26 . . . He stated that according to his own notations in date book, he attended business affair at local high school on May 24; on May 25 he attended a dinner engagement with other friends; and on May 27 he departed New Haven area on weekend cruise in Atlantic Ocean. He is positive event attended by Baldwin at Walsh home was held on Friday, May 26 1972.

— Special Agent in Charge, New Haven, Federal Bureau of Investigation[16][3]:38, 111

Bernard Barker had scheduled a dinner for “businessmen” to be held that Friday night, 26 May, in the Watergate complex’s Continental Room, which had a door connecting to a corridor leading to elevators and stairs. Barker had booked the room in the name of a shell corporation he had set up in Florida: Ameritas, Inc. According to Congressional and courtroom testimony by the perpetrators, plus personal accounts and autobiographies, the plan was to stretch out the dinner until there was an opportunity for the men to slip through the connecting door and gain access to the DNC headquarters by staircase or elevator. “The key” to the plan according to Liddy, was for McCord to disable an alarm on the connecting door, but McCord didn’t show up for the dinner, so didn’t disable the alarm, which is what supposedly foiled the plan.[3]:107-123 Jim Hougan, though, established that no alarm ever had existed on the connecting door at all.[11]:145

Liddy claimed in his autobiography, Will, that he was at the dinner, and ate McCord’s meal. Later, though, Liddy said under oath that he “was not at that dinner.”[2]

Hunt claimed in testimony and in his autobiography that he inadvertently had gotten locked inside the Continental Room, along with lockpicker Virgilio Gonzales, and that both men spent the night locked up there until they were able to slip out after daybreak—purportedly because of the alarm (which never existed). Gonzales gave similar testimony in Congress.[17][18][11]:139-148[3]:107-123 Yet Alfred Baldwin claimed that he saw Hunt in a car later that night outside McGovern headquarters in D.C.[19][3]:125-134

Concerning the many contradictions in the co-conspirators’ claims about that night, Hougan says: “Clearly, a hoax is in the works. For whatever reason, Hunt and Gonzalez [sic, Gonzales] have connived with McCord—and perhaps with others—to lie about their activities and whereabouts.”[11]:148 Gray says the reason was “to give James McCord, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy alibis for their whereabouts on Memorial Day weekend 1972.”[3]:73

Saturday, 27 May 1972: The “wrong lockpicks” break-in attempt

According to conflicting accounts by several of the co-conspiritors in testimony and autobiographies, a “second attempt” to break into DNC headquarters was made during the night of Saturday, 27 May 1972. Ostensibly, the would-be burglars managed to get inside the Watergate complex through a door in the parking garage, and up to the floor where DNC headquarters were, but the break-in attempt failed because Virgilio Gonzales had brought the wrong lockpicks. Hunt and Liddy claim that he was put on a plane to fly back to Miami that day and get the correct lockpicks.[11]:148-151[3]:134-140 According to Gray: “Other than the testimony of the co-conspirators, there is no evidence to support or verify any of the accounts of a second break-in attempt on the night of Saturday, 27 May 1972.”

Sunday, 28 May 1972: The “successful” break-in attempt

The Watergate co-conspirators have claimed that on the night of 28 May 1972, they successfully entered the Watergate complex and made their way to DNC headquarters, where Gonzales successfully picked the lock on the front door, gaining them entrance.[4]

McCord claims to have planted two electronic eavesdropping devices—or “bugs”—on phones in DNC headquarters that night, but he has contradicted himself in different accounts, and has contradicted Liddy, who ostensibly had set the priorities and “targets” for the bugs.[3]:41-50, 141-149 In Congressional testimony, McCord said he’d had instructions from Liddy to place one bug on “specifically, Mr. O’Brien’s telephone extension,” and to install the other where it “might provide information of interest.” [4] Larry O’Brien was the national chairman of the Democratic National Committee—but O’Brien had “moved his offices, and most of his files” to Miami at the time.[11]:81 In McCord’s autobiographical account A Piece of Tape, he claimed he had been asked by Liddy to “install only one device,” but had brought along another as “insurance,” in case it was needed. According to McCord’s accounts, he placed the first bug on the telephone of Robert Spencer Oliver, who was the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen, not on O’Brien’s phone, then planted the “insurance” bug on an extension that McCord says was O’Brien’s.[3]:41-50, 141-149

Liddy has claimed that there never were any instructions for McCord to plant two phone bugs. According to his testimony under oath:

LIDDY: So far as I understood, they 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, videotaped deposition[2]

Regardless of the claimed number of bugs or locations, McCord had purchased only one receiver that could pick up a signal from any such bug, and it could only receive from one bug at a time, monitored through headphones. According to McCord’s claims in Congressional testimony, it took him “about two days” to tune in even one such bug, and McCord had experience with such electronic devices. It would have been impossible for Baldwin, or anyone, to monitor two such bugs, even if more than one bug ever had been installed and working.[3]:41-50

The FBI found no evidence that O’Brien’s phone ever was bugged.[20] In fact, the only independent evidence that ever has existed concerning the alleged bugs came from two separate and thorough security surveys of DNC headquarters instigated by the FBI. The first was conducted by the Chief of Security of the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company—who had installed the phones—on Saturday, 17 June and Sunday, 18 June 1972. They physically inspected “all telephone installations and telephone equipment” in the DNC, and reported to the FBI that no bugs were found. Another thorough inspection was conducted by “technically trained agents of the FBI Laboratory” on Thursday, 29 June and Friday, 30 June 1972. They found no “electronic surveillance equipment.”[13][3]:41-50, 141-149

Neither the FBI nor any trier of fact ever had any physical evidence that any such “first break-in” of DNC headquarters actually took place, or that any bugs ever were planted in DNC over Memorial Day weekend 1972; the only evidence ever used consisted of the conflicting and contradictory “confessions” and testimony of the co-conspirators themselves.[3]:73-151

Alleged “photographs” of the “first break-in”

On 22 June 1972, the FBI located a witness named Michael Richardson who said he had developed and printed 38 exposed negatives at a photography processing shop in Miami. The film had been dropped off there on 10 June by Bernard Barker, one of the Watergate co-conspirators. According to Richardson, the photos were of documents that were “headed Chairman Democratic National Committee,” and a few of them had the name of Lawrence O’Brien on them. Richardson said that the documents had been photographed while being held down on a shag carpet by hands wearing “clear type gloves.”[21]

There was no shag carpet anywhere in DNC headquarters, or in the motel rooms that had been occupied by Barker and his fellow co-conspirators during the Memorial Day weekend operation.[11]:156-157

Also, while Barker claimed in his Congressional testimony that he and Martinez had been assigned to photograph documents during the purported “first break-in,” he also said that they never had been in Lawrence O’Brien’s office.[4][3]:580

The photographs that Michael Richardson described to the FBI were never found or submitted as physical evidence in any trial or hearing.

Alleged Baldwin “logs” of wiretaps

Alfred Baldwin claims that on McCord’s orders, he used the CEI Receiving System Type RS-111-1B-12 during the several weeks between 29 May and 17 June 1972 to monitor one bug in DNC headquarters, ostensibly one planted on the phone of Spencer Oliver. Liddy, McCord, and Baldwin all claim that one of the two purported bugs wasn’t working—which was convenient, because Baldwin only had one receiver to monitor.[4][3]:41-50, 141-149

Baldwin also claimed that as part of his monitoring duties, he made “logs”—at first by hand, then using an electric typewriter that McCord furnished—to document the phone conversations he was eavesdropping on. In Congressional testimony, Baldwin claimed under oath that he typed the conversations “almost verbatim” as he was listening to them through headphones:

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

ALFRED BALDWIN: The initial day, the first day that I recorded the conversations was on a yellow sheet. On Memorial Day … when he returned to the room he brought an electric typewriter, he instructed me in the upper left-hand corner to print, or by typewriter, the unit, 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. I used— As unit I used the exact frequency that we were monitoring, and after about two days Mr. McCord came back and said change that; anybody reading these things is going to know the frequency.

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

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

SENATOR ERVIN: Almost verbatim.

— Alfred Baldwin III, U.S. Congress, testimony of witnesses[4]

Only Liddy, McCord, and Baldwin ever claimed to have seen the purported Baldwin logs, and no such logs have ever been in evidence in any trial or hearing. According to Liddy, he destroyed them. Liddy’s secretary Sally Harmony testified in Congress that she typed up logs that she thought might have come from eavesdropped conversations, but she did not type them from any logs created by Baldwin; she typed out logs that Liddy had dictated for her to type.[4][3]:51-70

The 16-17 June 1972 break-in

G. Gordon Liddy has claimed in sworn testimony that on 12 June 1972, in another closed-door meeting, Jeb Magruder, and Magruder alone, ordered him to “go back into” DNC headquarters, purportedly to “fix” a defective bug,[22] and to photograph documents in Lawrence O’Brien’s desk.[2]

As for the allegedly defective bug, McCord only had purchased one receiver usable for that kind of monitoring, so attempting to install or fix a second bug would have been pointless—if there had been any bugs in DNC headquarters at all, but the FBI never found any. [23] As for O’Brien’s desk, O’Brien had relocated his operations to Miami in preparation for the upcoming Democratic National Convention.

Nevertheless, five of the co-conspirators broke into DNC headquarters during the night of Friday, 16 June, continuing into the early hours of Saturday, 17 June: James McCord, Bernard Barker, Virgilio Gonzales, Eugenio Martinez, and Frank Sturgis. This time, they didn’t bother with the finesse of Gonzales picking the DNC headquarters door lock; they took it off its hinges.[11]:198[3]:446

Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1972, Frank Wills, a security guard at the Watergate Complex, noticed tape covering the latches on some of the doors in the complex staircase leading from the underground parking garage to several offices (allowing the doors to close but remain unlocked). He removed the tape, thinking that it might have been maintenance crews. But when he returned an hour later and discovered that someone had retaped the locks, Wills called the police. McCord had done the retaping, even knowing that Wills would be making rounds again.[11]:185-204 Hougan says: “The conclusion is inescapable that McCord sabotaged the June 16 break-in to protect an ongoing CIA operation.”[11]:212

The five men were discovered inside the DNC office and arrested. Although McCord had electronic equipment on him at the time of his arrest, and other electronic equipment later was discovered in Hunt’s White House safe, none of it ever had been installed in DNC headquarters. Gray has described the equipment and other evidence found in the possession of the perpetrators as “theatrical props planted to be ‘found.'”[3]:62 Eventually they were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications.

On September 15, a grand jury indicted them, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[24] for conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws. The five burglars who broke into the office were tried by a jury, Judge John Sirica officiating, and either pled guilty or were convicted on January 30, 1973.[25]

On the morning of 18 June 1972, G. Gordon Liddy called Jeb Magruder in Los Angeles and informed him that “the four men arrested with McCord were Cuban freedom fighters, whom Howard Hunt recruited.” Initially Nixon’s organization and the White House quickly went to work to cover up the crime and any evidence that might have damaged the president and his reelection.[26]


  1. ^ a b c Judiciary Committee Impeachment Inquiry (9 May 1974). Statement of Information; Events Prior to the Watergate Break-In, December 2, 1971-June 17, 1972
  2. ^ a b c d e f g Transcript of videotaped deposition of G. Gordon Liddy, 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. Washington, D.C.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Gray, Ashton (28 May 2016). Watergate: The Hoax. Chalet Books. ISBN 9780979960277. 
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i U.S. Congress (1974). Testimony of witnesses: hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Ninety-third congress, second session, pursuant to H. Res. 803, a resolution authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exists for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America, Book III, 93rd Cong.
  5. ^ Dean, John W. The Nixon Defense, p. xvii, Penguin Group, 2014 ISBN 978-0-670-02536-7
  6. ^ a b Lawrence Meyer, “John N. Mitchell, Principal in Watergate, Dies at 75”, The Washington Post, November 10, 1988
  7. ^ FBI Report of 13 July 1972 by SA Dennis F. Hoffman, Rockville, Maryland, File # WFO 139-166
  8. ^ FBI (23 April 1973). Summary of Investigative Reports in the Case James Walter McCord, Jr., and Others, Burglary of Democratic National Committee Headquarters, June 17, 1972, Interception of Communications
  9. ^ FBI Teletype of 20 June 1972.
  10. ^ FBI Report of 13 July 1972 by SAs Dennis F. Hoffman and Michael J. King, Rockville, Maryland, File # WFO 139-166
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Hougan, Jim (November 1984). Secret Agenda: Watergate, Deep Throat, and the CIA. Random House. ISBN 0394514289. 
  12. ^ FBI Report of 30 June 1972 by SAs Robert E. Lill and Donald E. Stukey II, Washington, D.C.
  13. ^ a b FBI Office of Planning and Evaluation (5 July 1974). Watergate Investigation, Analysis
  14. ^ U.S. Congress (1973). Presidential Campaign Activities of 1972, Senate Resolution 60, Book 1, 93rd Cong. (Testimony of Alfred C. Baldwin III)
  15. ^ FBI Report of 23 June 1972 by SA Emmett J. Michaels and SA Robert C. Puckett/RCP at Hamden, Connecticut, File # NH 139-74
  16. ^ FBI Teletype of 11 a.m. 26 July 1972 from SAC, New Haven (139-74) 2P to Acting Director, FBI (139-166) and SAC, WFO (139-4089)
  17. ^ E. Howard Hunt testimony, December 17, 1973; 13–15 Executive Session
  18. ^ Virgilio Gonzales testimony, December 10, 1973; 9–11 SSC Executive Session
  19. ^ Alfred Baldwin testimony, May 24, 1973; 1 SSC 399–401, 410–11
  20. ^ a b c d Jeff Stein (July 16, 2013). “Watergate Bugging-Again: Newly released wiretap list raises questions on ’72 break-in”. AND Magazine. Retrieved September 8, 2014. 
  21. ^ FBI Teletype of 22 June 1972
  22. ^ a b Robert Pear (June 14, 1992). “WATERGATE, THEN AND NOW; 2 Decades After a Political Burglary, the Questions Still Linger”. The New York Times. Retrieved May 18, 2015. 
  23. ^ NOTE: On 13 September 1972, months after the Watergate break-in, a bug was “discovered” on Spencer Oliver’s phone after a complaint by a secretary at DNC headquarters. The crime scene had been hopelessly compromised by that time, and according to FBI reports, the device was an old and unsophisticated “bug” with a very short range, and it was not operational. The FBI felt that the “discovery” was suspicious. According to Hougan, page 246: “The consensus of the experts whom the FBI questioned was that the device recovered from Oliver’s phone was a ‘throwaway’—a device installed to be found.”
  24. ^ Dickinson, William B.; Mercer Cross; Barry Polsky (1973). “Watergate: Chronology of a Crisis”. 1. Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.: 4. ISBN 0-87187-059-2. OCLC 20974031. 
  25. ^ Sirica, John J. (1979). To Set the Record Straight: The Break-in, the Tapes, the Conspirators, the Pardon. New York: Norton. p. 44. ISBN 0-393-01234-4. 
  26. ^ Genovese, Michael A. The Watergate Crisis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. p.4

Attack of Wikipedia’s Pack of Deep-State Disinformation Jackals

Celestia Jung’s accurate, factual, and very well-sourced work had hardly been on Wikipedia for 24 hours before it was under attack by its Big-Brother Thought Police. As a public service, we are going to reproduce here the exact messages from the “Talk” section of the Wikipedia “Watergate scandal” pages showing the depth of dishonesty, bigotry, and holier-than-thou disinformation censorship being run there:

Celestia Jung 21:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I have made numerous edits to the first section, renaming it and rewriting much of it to reflect accurate and verifiable facts. In doing so, I added 26 new references, including Congressional documents and FBI reports. I also added many citations to some of those sources where the previous content had a lot of “citation needed” codes. I have made every good faith effort to make this a comprehensive and informative article in accordance with Wikipedia policies. A great deal of work has gone into this edit and finding reputable sources. Please consider carefully before undoing this work. Thanks.

Usernamekiran 22:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC) {{reply to|Celestia Jung}}
I didn’t read it carefully yet, but I skimmed through it. As far as I can tell, it is a good edit.

Celestia Jung 15:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. A lot of research and work went into it, and there is only so much time I can devote to it, but I hope to be able to enhance some of the other sections with solid citations, many of them directly from the FBI’s Watergate files.

Special:Contributionss/ 05:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please review the edits added by [[User:Celestia Jung]] between May 12 and 15? The contributions seem to be mostly or entirely sourced to ”Watergate: The Hoax”, a poorly referenced book which advances a Scientologist conspiracy theory that Watergate was a CIA operation to cover up an assassination attempt on L. Ron Hubbard.

Celestia Jung|talk]]) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
“Poorly referenced”? You obviously don’t have or haven’t read the book. It is 600 pages long with 495 citations, many of them the original FBI documents, many of them ones that never have been published, analyzed, or cited in any other work on Watergate. Also, your allegation that my edits were “mostly or entirely” sourced from that book is false on its face. I cited at least 26 different sources in my edits, including Hougan’s “Secret Agenda,” quotations from actual Watergate legal proceedings and Congressional hearings, and quite a few of the original FBI reports. As for your “conspiracy theory” allegations, there is not a single word of any “conspiracy theory” in my edits. They contain solid, irrefutable facts, solidly sourced. My edits also don’t contain a single word about any “Scientologist” connection, so it sounds like you’re simply trying to foment a biased attack based on—well, based on nothing at all. Your comment is baseless and frivolous, and antipathetic to the intent of Talk pages. If you have a valid complaint about the content, then please refer specifically to which stated fact you challenge, and give a sound, rational reason for challenging it.

EDITED TO ADD: By the way, the entire government case, in court and Congress, was never anything but an elaborate “conspiracy theory.” If you have a non-conspiracy theory of Watergate, how about you present it for all of us? I sure would like to see it. Otherwise, it isn’t the fact of “conspiracy theory ” you object to; you just don’t want anything exposed or documented that might in any way damage your own “conspiracy theory.”

Special:Contribution| 20:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. I see you also referenced the equally dubious ”Secret Agenda”, as well as several original documents. My concern is that you have inserted a great deal of heterodox analysis without flagging it as such, possibly including original research. Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to sort through it all at the moment, hence my plea for someone else to review it. I suppose I’ll get around to it eventually.

User:Location|Location 22:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Ashton Gray and Jim Hougan are definitely not [[WP:RELIABLE SOURCES]]. On that alone those edits should be reverted entirely. This requires many more eyes than I have, so I’ve posted a notice at [[WP:FTN]].

Geogene|talk]]) 03:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Saw this on FNB. Manually reverted new additions that added info based on Fringe or Primary sources. There may be usable material that I removed, if so, it’s still in the article history.

CHALET REPORTS NOTE: All of Celestia Jung’s edits, additions, and references were wiped out, with the article reverted to its fantasy fiction. Jung attempted to reinstate the edits, additions, and references, which were promptly “reverted” to the original lies and disinformation. Jung was then threatened with having his or her account revoked if there were any more attempts to revert to Jung’s edited version of the facts. Jung then told them what they needed to hear:

Celestia Jung 06:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Those of you who have contributed to this “reversion” are not gatekeepers of truth or fact; you are the most base vandals of knowledge. In a cavalier sweep, you have wiped out of existence inarguable, well-documented, incontrovertible facts, and replaced them with your own reprehensible brand of pure fantasy, which you are knowingly, willfully foisting off on the world at large as “truth.” It is pure fiction, and you peddle it as fact. You are beneath contempt. You are beneath snake-oil salesmen. You are self-anointed, arrogant, disdainful High Priests of your own pet theories and delusions, which you shove down the throats of the rest of the world in unspeakable, haughty totalitarianism—claiming, of course, the “moral high ground.”

You believe in nonexistent “bugs” that the FBI proved conclusively never were installed in DNC headquarters. So you erase out of existence every documented FACT that proves that your delusional beliefs are as insane as belief in gryphons or unicorns, and shove your “religion” of Watergate down the throats of the rest of the world, as though it’s your Eucharist. Not ONE of you can document the existence, ever, of a single working bug planted in DNC headquarters. No, you can’t, any more than you can document the unicorn in your back yard or your stigmata.

You believe in nonexistent “logs” by Baldwin that never existed in the real world. You cannot document the existence, ever, of even one such log—just as not one of you can document the Virgin Mary or Tinkerbell coming and standing at the foot of your bed. But you push this swill off on the world, because it’s your religion, and you are the High Priests of sheer fiction.

You cannot document the existence, ever, of any “alarm” on the door of the Continental Room of the Watergate, because one never existed. It is sheer mythology—yet your ENTIRE BELIEF in the “official story” of Watergate hinges ENTIRELY on blind-faith belief that there WAS an alarm, that there HAD TO BE an alarm where none existed. Why? Because all of the disciples of your mad-dog religion, all of your so-called “reliable sources,” have TOLD you that there had to be an alarm there, otherwise the burglars would have broken in on Friday, 26 May 1972—even though the FBI PROVED that Alfred Baldwin was 300 miles away that night, so could not possibly have participated in the lying FICTION that he foisted off on Congress and the world. Oh, but you lap up the sewage spilled in gallons by Baldwin as though it were the blood of one of your saints, because without his lies—which have been proved conclusively as lies—your entire mythology that you reign as High Priests over goes up in smoke. And that would be a supreme waste of perfectly good smoke.

You sate yourselves like vampires on “reliable sources” like the L.A. Times, who published Baldwin’s original scandalous lies that he had driven back to D.C. on Thursday, 25 May. Have you ever bothered to check your so-called “reliable source”? Well, HAVE YOU? No, you haven’t, because you cling like blithering psychos to your Watergate religion—which is sheer fantasy—and you make sure that all heretics speaking actual facts are excommunicated, banished, silenced. If you had ever bothered to check your “reliable source,” the L.A. Times, you would have learned that the FBI proved conclusively that Baldwin’s car was STILL IN SERVICE AT BRANHAVEN CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH, just outside of New Haven, Connecticut all day on 25 May. Did you bother to check? No, you didn’t, did you? Ashton Gray did. His book is the first and only book in the annals of all the millions of gallons of ink to find that in the FBI files and reveal the truth to the world. That’s exactly why Baldwin had to change his story in Congress, moving the date of his return to Washington to the next day, 26 May. The only problem is that the FBI also discovered that he was still in Connecticut on THAT day, too. And the ONE AND ONLY SOURCE IN THE HISTORY OF WATERGATE COVERAGE who ever found that out was Ashton Gray. And you call his book “weird”? You have the reprehensible gall to call Gray “unreliable” as a source?

Well, of course you do. You are the High Priests of Lies, Mythology, Fiction, and Fantasy Posing as “Fact.” Anything or anyone challenging your religious fanaticism with actual FACTS has to be pilloried, branded as a heretic, and burned at the stake—fed with the flames of your oh-so-righteous book burning.

You are worse than any vandals who ever trampled truth into the ground. You are worse than those who sacked and destroyed the Library of Alexandria. You poison the very groundwater of mankind’s knowledge with your revolting, autocratic, tyrannical priesthood of arrogance and disdain.

The saddest part, though, is that you believe in fairy tales, and don’t even know it. That kind of ignorance is its own reward.


And so, as it stands right now, Wikipedia’s “Watergate scandal” page is the biggest scandal of all: back to the same old stale and moldy government-packaged conspiracy theory that the world has accepted as the “Official Story” of Watergate. And it is a lie. It is a vicious lie. It was a never anything but a deadly hoax on the United States—and on the world—that overthrew a president, and launched the CIA’s longest-running, blackest secret program in its history.

We have no idea what happened to Celestia Jung. We urge him or her to contact us at because we always can use good, smart, dedicated researchers who have the integrity to follow the truth, and tell the truth, no matter where it goes.

As for Wikipedia, it should be shamed into the infamy it richly deserves. These words of Celestia Jung should be Wikipedia’s eulogy:

You are the most base vandals of knowledge. … You are beneath snake-oil salesmen. You are self-anointed, arrogant, disdainful High Priests of your own pet theories and delusions, which you shove down the throats of the rest of the world in unspeakable, haughty totalitarianism—claiming, of course, the “moral high ground.”
—Celestia Jung

When you want to know the truth about Watergate, when you want to know the cold, hard facts that your government and the Deep State—and Wikipedia—have kept you in the dark about for decades …



Watergate: The Hoax is available now
at Amazon, iBooks and 
Barnes & Noble.
Order it today!

Rewrite history with the truth!


read more

The CIA Psyops of Watergate and Beyond

Thursday, 7 December 2017 by

This is an excerpt from the book  Watergate: The Hoax, by Ashton Gray, now on sale at AmazoniBooks, Barnes & Noble, and other fine book retailers. This is Appendix III, “The CIA Psyops of Watergate and Beyond,” offered here in full as a public service because these same psyops are being used in the world today:

Although G. Gordon Liddy was not “officially” part of the CIA, he was operating under “special clearances” granted to him by CIA, and met at key times with high-level CIA officials. He also was supplied with disguises, false I.D., and equipment by the CIA, all crucial to many of the CIA psyops behind Watergate, the hoax.

Appendix III: The CIA Psyops of Watergate and Beyond

This is a warning: Watergate is a mine field of psychological operations techniques—PSYOPS. You’re free to ignore this warning. You can turn right to the first chapter and read this book without reading this appendix. The book was conceived and crafted as a path through that mine field, so you will come out the other end intact either way.

Your understanding and appreciation of what you’re walking through in reading it, though, will be greatly enhanced by investing a few minutes in reviewing some of the more deadly PSYOPS techniques that you’ll encounter—from a safe distance.

This appendix doesn’t pretend to be an exhaustive study of such black psychological techniques; it merely outlines major ones used in the packaging and selling of a CIA hoax of remarkable scope that is commonly known as “Watergate.”


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

These contradictions aren’t the result of mere misperceptions by different eyewitnesses; these are cooked, manufactured fictions by people supposedly “confessing” their acts and the acts of others, or “confessing” a false purpose for certain acts. Their accounts of events, and of several staged phony “events,” contain elements of PSYOPS that are planted for no other purpose than to confuse, and, by confusing, to deflect close inspection and comparison that would reveal the lies.

This goes beyond what is commonly referred to in the intelligence trade as a “limited hangout”: voluntarily confessing to certain sins to deflect attention from others that are far more serious.


A time-honored and favorite intelligence technique for creating confusion is to supply two separate and contradictory accounts of what purportedly is the same event. The mind locks. It cannot be resolved. No certain truth can be reached about the time span of the event, because both contradictory accounts cannot be true. The mind is forced to make a choice between two accounts that might both be false, or to leave it unresolved, yet still attempt to link that enduring mystery to other claimed or actual events that depend on it, or that take place around it. The landscape of Watergate is littered with such mental traps. They work hand-in-hand with the next op:


One frequently used technique to spread a tremendous amount of confusion is to supply seemingly plausible accounts of the “same” events through different sources, with the

varying accounts appearing at different times and in different places. A variation is to have several different accounts from one source, but told at different times. Each of the conflicting accounts has certain major commonly agreed-upon and sometimes true components. These are crucial to the fraud. The perceiver’s mind latches onto these common components they’ve heard about from “multiple sources,” and attempts to synthesize it all together into a cohesive whole, no matter how many details are at variance and odds with each other. The contradictory details most often are overlooked. That factor alone is the key to the success of the fraud.

That’s the way Watergate was packaged. To hear one participant’s testimony, it often makes some kind of “sense.” To read another perp’s book, it makes “sense.” The different accounts agree on certain points, but wildly diverge on others. The mind constructs a mental universe in which all these things are able to take place, and in which time not only is elastic, but even can be, and often must be, subconsciously subdivided into separate parallel, but unsynchronized, time streams.


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

This gets so absurd in Watergate that, when exposed, it can’t help but be funny, even with the realization that the CIA operation was an act of Treason during a time of war.

Only a careful and detailed comparison of all the accounts side-by-side, on one and only one time stream—the one governed by the motion of heavenly bodies and measured by clocks—reveals that no such set of events possibly could have taken place in objective reality.

A twist on this psyop is making the “time” in an incident or event as vague and indeterminate as possible, or giving an entirely false date. Among the dirtiest tricks is merely describing “events” with no date at all, which causes the “events” to float timelessly, and to shift around in the mind’s attempt to make them fit against other events. This is especially vicious when the “events” are simply fictions, or a mixture of fact and fiction. The lack of time information makes it extremely difficult to find any evidence to prove or disprove the anecdotal claims. CIA ops commonly leave out any definite date for a described event, or give a “date” that might be months or even a year or more off. Several instances have been found, by comparison to other sources, of the wrong year being given when the month and day are correct. Another psyop is to give a wrong sequence of events, especially when coupled with lack of any actual date.

These tricks with time create havoc in analysis.


Two major building blocks of false “histories” are: falsehoods that can’t be disproved (see Closed Doors And Clandestine Interaction below), and omissions of important facts. Through the use of an exacting timeline, the most blatant falsehoods often can be located. Once that’s done, more subtle falsehoods inevitably emerge, since they are necessary to the greater ones. By that stripping away of layers of falsity, omissions begin to emerge, the most obvious ones being the omission of whatever truth the lies were invented to conceal. This book was possible only by reference to a timeline database of over 11,000 entries.

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

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


A subset of falsehoods and contradictions, this is a black ops technique used like repeated blows of a blunt instrument to the head all throughout Watergate and its “testimony.” It is used over and over and over to confound and confuse, but is so subtle as almost to escape notice entirely. The Senate Watergate Committee, for example, let floods of plural vs. singular contradictions go by.

The basic technique is to keep changing the singular/plural reference to items that play a role—sometimes even items that never had any existence at all.

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

It is sheer hell on the mind. It keeps it in a constant state of uncertainty at a very low level of awareness, and it is almost never noticed by anybody unless this black PSYOPS technique is known about and pointed out as a well-trained black operation, used by operatives with malice aforethought to keep things in a state of constant confusion. That is its purpose.


This is a deadly PSYOPS technique of planting near-duplicates as a method of creating enormous confusion. Certainly, life can and does produce coincidences of seeming similarity. But there is a knowing malefic use of this phenomenon that is done solely to confuse. It has been called a “burdensome fog” by John Gillespie.

One vicious example in Watergate is the purported “logs” of wiretaps. The stories of the co-conspirators allude to two complete (but entirely fictional) sets of these “logs”: one set supposedly made by Alfred Baldwin, another by G. Gordon Liddy that purportedly was created to “fix” Baldwin’s set—which never existed in the first place.

The phony “break-in” at the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist, Dr. Louis Fielding, and the later purported but entirely fictional “first break-in” at the Watergate were concocted to be extremely similar: both over holiday weekends, both using many of the same personnel, both having “walkie-talkie problems,” both failing to accomplish their purported (entirely false) “objectives,” and many more close similarities that one can count once the black PSYOPS techniques to generate such confusion is known.

On the subject of Dr. Fielding, another critical example is John Dean’s assistant, Fred Fielding, whose last-name counterpart, Dr. Fielding, is so important in the “Pentagon Papers” fraud that led to Watergate, itself merely the opening act in the greater CIA fraud. It is no accident that Dean was supplied with an “assistant” whose last name was Fielding. Both Fieldings are linked to the activities of E. Howard Hunt in crucial ways. In some of the testimony, particularly Dean’s, only the last name is used repeatedly. This is a trained technique used repeatedly for maximum destruction. It is tantamount to a stun grenade every place it is used. It scatters attention off in two different directions, on two different “tracks,” widely separated in time: in this case the “Dr. Fielding” CIA op of early September 1971, and the “Fred Fielding” involvement in the other CIA op, the fraud of Hunt’s “Diem cables,” which supposedly took place in 1972—but both “Fieldings” were injected into public view at about the same time in 1973 through the testimony of John Dean.

For now, suffice it to say that John Dean is the person whose role it was to make the “revelations” of both of these CIA operations, both involving “Fieldings” and E. Howard Hunt in some crucial way, and both designed to point away from CIA and at the White House. Dean did it when he had maximum world exposure: in the Senate Watergate hearings. Both of these “revelations” and “confessions” by Dean had world-shaking consequences.


A PSYOPS technique heavily relied upon in Watergate to create the conflicts and fictions described generally above is alleged private, secret talks and meetings and activities

between two, or a few, of the principal actors, with nothing more than their own assertions of what the subject and substance of such an interaction was. An almost inconceivable amount of what we know as Watergate is built on no more foundation, and it is no foundation at all. It often is pure fiction.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


As stated in the opening paragraph, this is merely an outline of some of the more deadly techniques used by CIA and its murderous sisters in its black ops against mankind. These techniques are not relegated to historical frauds like the Pentagon Papers and Watergate: the daily news you’re getting right this instant is filled with these same black ops.

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

Ashton Gray


In the published version of Watergate: The Hoax, the text refers repeatedly to another specific type of CIA psyop that I colloquially called, in the body of the book, a “no-see-um.” It technically fits under categories above, such as “Hidden Communications;” “Falsehoods and Omissions,” or “‘History by Manufactured Confession,” but it rightfully deserves its own detailed mention, and the editors have been kind enough to let me add it here.

As the name implies, the psyop refers to items of “evidence” that are discussed by perps as though they exist—or once existed—yet are never produced in the real world. There can be countless excuses or “reasons why” the item or items are not physically in evidence or available for inspection. Just a few examples from the book are, e.g.: an “envelope” full of “documents” supposedly “delivered” to a building guard—but that no one ever saw; an “alarm” on a door that never existed, but supposedly was “key” to a failed “break-in” attempt that never happened; electronic “bugs” supposedly planted in a office, but that never existed at all.

All of the CIA psyops are vicious destroyers of truth, and are vicious booby-traps for investigators and triers-of-fact trying to get to the truth. This one, the “No-See-Um,” may be the most deadly of all. The literature of “Watergate” is filled with such no-see-ums—utterly non-existent “things” that are discussed by supposedly rational and professional people just as those these invisible things ever existed. It may as well be a discussion of unicorns or gorgons.

That’s exactly why the unofficial motto of my book, repeated many times throughout, is: “Fiction doesn’t leave a paper trail.”

Because I point out so many “no-see-ums” in the body of the book, I didn’t think it necessary to add this specific category to this appendix at the time of publication. I now see that as an oversight—my own “no-see-um” perhaps—and I am grateful for this opportunity to correct it.

Ashton Gray



Watergate: The Hoax is available now
at Amazon, iBooks and 
Barnes & Noble.
Order it today!

Rewrite history with the truth!


read more