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!