On Edwin Kaiser and Related Topics

[Scott Kaiser]

And, on May 7, 1977 exactly three months after Edwin Kaiser's death, Frank Sturgis said, In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, "that the objective of the Watergate break-ins was to locate and destroy the photographs of our role in the assassination of the President."

AND, the TRUTH shall set ME FREE!

Would you please post a link to that article or a scan of it you have a copy?I find it very hard to believe that Sturgis said something like that in a major newspaper interview. And I would have read about it long ago.

[FONT=&amp]A researcher said, "Recently I interviewed former CIA liaison officer L. Fletcher Prouty. He is a consultant for the excellent new movie on how the CIA killed JFK, being made by Oliver Stone. He told me that one of the projects he did for the CIA was in 1961 to deliver US Navy ships from a Navy ship yard to the CIA agents in Guatemala planning the invasion of Cuba. He said he delivered three ships to a CIA agent named George Bush, who had the 3 ships painted to look like they were civilian ships. That CIA agent then named the 3 ships after: his wife, his home town and his oil company. He named the ships: Barbara, Houston & Zapata. Any book on the history of the Bay of Pigs will prove the names of those 3 ships. Again, this is more finger prints of George Bush's involvement in the Bay of Pigs invasion. Yet Bush denies his role in this great adventure. Why would Bush be so shy about his role in this war? What is the secret? Is there something dirty about this war that Bush & Nixon don't want the public to know about?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Answer: Yes there is. The same people involved in the Bay of Pigs were the people involved in the Watergate burglary. Why was the Watergate burgalarized [sic]? The CIA was trying to plug up a possible news leak. They were trying to stop the Democrats from publishing the photos of Hunt & Sturgis under arrest for the murder of JFK (May 7, 1977, SF Chronicle.)

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]On that transcript we find Nixon discussing the role of George Bush's partner, Robert Mosbacher, as one of the Texas fundraisers for Nixon. On the tapes Nixon keeps refering to the "Cubans" and the "Texans." The "Texans" were Bush, Mosbacher and Baker. This is another direct link between Bush and evidence linking Nixon and Bush to the Kennedy assassination.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In the same discussion Nixon links "the Cubans," "the Texans," "Helms," "Hunt," "Bernard Barker," Robert "Mosbacher" and "the Bay of Pigs." Over and over on the Watergate tapes, these names come up around the discussion of the photos from Dallas that Nixon was trying to obtain when he ordered the CIA to burglarize the Watergate. (Source: Three Men and a Barge", Teresa Riordan, Common Cause magazine, March/April 1990, and San Francisco Chronicle, May 7,1977, interview with Frank Sturgis in which he stated that "the reason we burglarized the Watergate was because Nixon was interested in stopping news leaking related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John Kennedy.")

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbushG.htm

This doesn't necessarily mean what Frank said got published, I'm simply pointing out the fact that Frank said what he said, and his timing was perfect, and he said what he said after killing my father, you're missing the point, not everything gets dismissed. [/FONT]

[Scott Kaiser]

And! I might add that before anyone starts to jump to the conclusions of the three Tramp photos in Dallas that's not what Frank is talking about, Frank, as well as Aldo Vera, Nino Diaz, Rudy Junco and others already knew who had the photos, the real photos of the men standing outside a hotel/motel room in Dallas Texas the day Kennedy was assassinated, and Richard Poyle even knew they existed, in-fact, after viewing the photos Richard didn't want to have anything to do with my father, period.

[Scott Kaiser]

It really all depends on how one would interpret what Frank is saying, bottomline is we all know who had the photos.

"In Realist #117 Paul Kangas quoted from an interview with Frank Sturgis that never took place. I went to the library and looked the fucker up and it was not there. In 1977 Sturgis was involved with E. Howard Hunt in a lawsuit against me and would never have said the reason we burglarized the Watergate was because Nixon was interested in stopping news leaks relating to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John Kennedy. ' I was being sued for saying the same thing, and I would have called him as a witness."

I sent a copy of Weberman's letter to Kangas. He called and promised to mail me the interview with Sturgis, something I should have insisted on originally. He sent an article from the Houston Post of May 5, 1977, a UPI dispatch datelined Dallas, which stated:

"Watergate burglar Frank Sturgis said Wednesday the CIA planned the break-in because high officials felt Richard Nixon was becoming too powerful and was overly interested in the assassination of John Kennedy. . . . Several times the President asked [CIA director] Richard Helms for the files on the Kennedy assassination but Helms refused to give it to him, refused a direct order from the President,* Sturgis said.

I believe Nixon would have uncovered the true facts in the assassination of President Kennedy and that would have taken off the heat in Watergate. Because Nixon wanted files, the CIA felt they had to get rid of him.' Asked if Nixon ever was in danger, Sturgis replied, Tes, absolutely. Nixon was lucky he wasn't killed assassinated like President Kennedy. ' "

CIA documents say my father had the photos, they also mention how my father stole from the government. In order to get the story as to how my father got a hold of these photos I had to question those who seen the photos and took my father to the CIA's headquarters in Miami.

If Frank came out with this story just months after killing my father and not at any time during Watergate then it is conclusive proof to me who killed my father and why this is the point I'm trying to make regardless of what Frank said, it's when Frank said it.

Amazing how Frank also brings up the assassination plot regarding Nixon, but I won't tell you I told you so.

Soon enough you'll read all about it.

[Scott Kaiser]

Note, Frank said Nixon wanted the files on Kennedy's assassination, he didn't say the Bay of Pigs.

Interpreting what Frank is really saying here is solely up to the reader's discretion bottom line Ed Kaiser had these photos we all speak of and not a single person can ever discredit that evidence.

Evidence that's even backed by proof from those who seen them, these are the facts.

[Scott Kaiser]

I don't know who this site belongs to, I believe Cliff had something to do with this research, he may have written this up, something I should have done. There is no excuse as to why I didn't do it.

I did take the material at Spartacus at face value where I thought Mr. Simkin would post not just the source, but the truth. I also discovered the same material at a site owned by a Tom Flaco never heard of him. When multiple people are saying the same thing I assumed there was some truth to it. It was also originally printed in my first book, but now it's removed. It does pay to look into researchers accusations. As I've said, this is all very new to me, and I'm learning.

https://archive.org/stream/nsia-RealistT...4_djvu.txt

[Scott Kaiser]

And, I would like to further say the following verbiage "Nixon and H.R. Haldeman, his chief of staff, on June 23, 1972, a week after the break-in. Haldeman stated:

"And it [the FBI Investigation] goes in some directions we don't want it to go. Ah, also there have been some things, like an informant came in off the street to the FBI in Miami, who was a photographer or has a friend who is a photographer who developed some films through this guy, Barker, and the films had pictures of Democratic National Committee letterhead documents and things."

There were only three men who went in the store to develop these photos, Barnard Barker, Frank Sturgis and my father. The informant Haldemen is discussing here is my father, no one but those three men went to develop these films, and only these three knew where they went to have them developed.

The photographer that Haldemen is talking about is Richardson, this is how the FBI was led to Richardson to interview him where he ID Barnard and Frank in a photo line up, but because my father was unknown in the Watergate investigation Richardson was not shown a photo of my father other then my father being questioned by the FBI. Richardson gave a description of my father to the FBI. It wasn't until my father reached out to Liebengood that my father would provide a little more information.

[Tracy Riddle]

Further down on the Spartacus page, it says the interview from SF Chronicle is from 1990, not 1977. I can't access the SF archive because I'm not a subscriber. I would like to see the actual article. Do you have the whole thing, Scott?

On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis acknowledged:[/FONT]
"The reason why we robbed in Watergate was because (Richard) Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."[/FONT]

[LR Trotter]

When the Watergate Hotel Break-In story began to be a news item, my reaction was, what is it all about? As I recall, although the US was still engulfed in the civil war in VietNam, otherwise things were going along pretty well. And, negotiations were ongoing for a peace agreement between North VietNam and South VietNam.
The upcoming '72 Presidential Election did not appear to be, and wasn't close. And, the shortage of available oil was still in the future, all of which made it all far beyond my understanding. As years went by, movies were made and stories told, but still without a clear understanding of the why, I began to somewhat believe the expressed thoughts of it being a "get Nixon" event.
::

[Scott Kaiser]

Further down on the Spartacus page, it says the interview from SF Chronicle is from 1990, not 1977. I can't access the SF archive because I'm not a subscriber. I would like to see the actual article. Do you have the whole thing, Scott?

On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis acknowledged:[/FONT]
"The reason why we robbed in Watergate was because (Richard) Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photos of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."[/FONT]

I have not seen the artical, I took the information there as I've said at face vaule beliving that's what Frank said, like I said Frank already knew who had the photos, and if Frank did say that, then I have to say, that is NOT what watergate was about, everyone knows, we all know the real reason for Watergate was to fund another run into Cuba and try to recapture Cuba from Castro.

I didnt know what the truth is to what Frank said to the SF Chronicle, but if he said it I am merely pointing out the fact that Frank could have said what he said anytime before my father was killed.

As I said, Frank knew who had the photos.

[Scott Kaiser]

As years went by, movies were made and stories told, but still without a clear understanding of the why

I shed light on it now and why proving Jack Anderson's role in Watergate, who the sixth burglar was and his role in Watergate and who was the "big boss", this and so much more.

Watergate was an operation that required multiple operations, in other words it didn't just require breaking in Watergate to later set up the president, there were multiple operations to Watergate.