On Edwin Kaiser and Related Topics

[Scott Kaiser]

My next question for anyone who wishes to answer would be. Could this eveidence be the eveidence that could get us even closer to what really happened. Mr. Best is right about one thing, and that is this information belongs to the people.

[Peter Lemkin]

Getting information out of the kind you have Scott is not easy. Not easy as no book is easy to market and get out - and then you likely have hidden forces that would like to see it never see the light of day. I'm not an expert on this and to be honest am doing my own hunting for how to get out my own book on a totally different subject now. I'd suggest you contact several persons who have successfully gotten out book that fall into the general topic of 'national security secrets', and ask them how they found their editors, publishers, etc....and all of the horror stories [which they all have]...and plan from there. Ditto about documentary filmmakers. An interested investor is always a great asset, but they are few and far between...less so those that won't interfere in your desired directions of approach. A good editor can turn something that is disorganized and complex into a interesting, exciting and important book. Publishers don't like many photos nor documents due to cost and the documents as they fear it will turn off the average reader. They'll allow some, but not as many as you want. The book need not, and likely can not be, the 'final word' on the subject. However, getting it 'out there' will get others who know other pieces of the puzzle to come forward for a revised edition or follow up book with a more definitive story. Getting on alternative media talk shows is another way to beat the bushes for missing information. There is no one correct way to go forward with something like this, but I'd suggest a multi-pronged approach. It is a hard slog...but in the end necessary and beneficial. I'd also suggest talking to as many former intelligence operatives and officers who have left in disgust and are now whistleblowers - even if their experiences don't overlap with your material. They usually can point you in directions and introduce you to people who can help.

[Scott Kaiser]

Getting information out of the kind you have Scott is not easy. Not easy as no book is easy to market and get out - and then you likely have hidden forces that would like to see it never see the light of day. I'm not an expert on this and to be honest am doing my own hunting for how to get out my own book on a totally different subject now. I'd suggest you contact several persons who have successfully gotten out book that fall into the general topic of 'national security secrets', and ask them how they found their editors, publishers, etc....and all of the horror stories [which they all have]...and plan from there. Ditto about documentary filmmakers. An interested investor is always a great asset, but they are few and far between...less so those that won't interfere in your desired directions of approach. A good editor can turn something that is disorganized and complex into a interesting, exciting and important book. Publishers don't like many photos nor documents due to cost and the documents as they fear it will turn off the average reader. They'll allow some, but not as many as you want. The book need not, and likely can not be, the 'final word' on the subject. However, getting it 'out there' will get others who know other pieces of the puzzle to come forward for a revised edition or follow up book with a more definitive story. Getting on alternative media talk shows is another way to beat the bushes for missing information. There is no one correct way to go forward with something like this, but I'd suggest a multi-pronged approach. It is a hard slog...but in the end necessary and beneficial. I'd also suggest talking to as many former intelligence operatives and officers who have left in disgust and are now whistleblowers - even if their experiences don't overlap with your material. They usually can point you in directions and introduce you to people who can help.

Thanks for the advise, in the beginning, I was beating the walls, talking to anyone who would listen, now, I just take one day at a time, you are correct that there is hidden forces that would like no better then for any true discovery to never come to light. Then, there are those who will criticize, ridicule, and those skeptics who are doubters. It all comes with the territory. I've learned that if I can't discredit those who have shared their stories with me, then there has got to be some truth to them.

There seems to be more circumstantial evidence then there is coincidences, if everything was one big coincidence, then, that would be pretty easy to explain away, unfortunately, it's not.

Thanks again.

[Scott Kaiser]

In a nutshell, I take every assassin that was ever connected to my father and report on them both, tying the story together. I've read books which have blamed just one entity or the other, books that have blamed several entities, and books that focused on a single person as the shooter with some backup team or another.

What I'm doing is taking every assassin that's ever worked with my dad whose main focus was to assassinate Castro, and these plots that continued even after Kennedy was assassinated. There seems to be that one policy that continues to surface and re-surface more than any other policy with the United States, and that was America's foreign policy with Cuba.

When we can connect the dots, and take a good hard look at every assassin rather then to blame a single entity or the collective heads of these departments as to who we think did it, then this picture becomes clear.

That's my goal, however, I fully respect everyone's opinions and theories, I suppose, I'm unorthodox, and that could be a bad thing, who knows?

Thus, is the reason I felt the book itself should appropriately be called, ASSASSINS.

[Scott Kaiser]

Peter, I value your opinion, as I do others, please help me to keep a level head, my question to you, and anyone who wishes to answer is this; is there any other Frenchie that Howard Hunt knew? I know that during Watergate, Hunt was the silent boss who placed Kaiser in-change of the "Sunward Plan while others were doing other things in Watergate."

Is this just another coincidence that Edwin Kaiser was aka Frenchie? And, Hunt never made any identification as to who this Frenchie is/was, but he merely states this Frenchie does exist?

What's your take on this?

[Scott Kaiser]

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this investigation was going on and after a report came in from St. Louis 1972 Kaiser left for Alaska in October 1972, he returned to Miami on October 18, 1972 from Alaska, just another coincidence right?

[Scott Kaiser]

I guess a better question would be, with all this evidence piling up against my father, why would he never spend a single day in prison? Anyone else would have spent years behind bars for what my father's done, but not him.... Why?

If no one can answer that, I can't figure it out either.

[Scott Kaiser]

"The reason I called you, Hunt to Colson, was to make, un--get back to the beginning here--(meaning, Bay of Pigs,) is because of the commitments, uh, that were made to all of us at onset, have not been kept." Speaking about the promises/commitments made by Jack Kennedy.

All of them? wait a minute, you mean to tell me that all of them, but one was involved with Cuba and her problems, the Bay of Pigs, as the sixth Watergater writes?

Promise for air support, promise to free Cuba, promise to have the brigade's 2506 flag fly freely over Havana, promise to allow the CIA to carry on their infiltration's into Cuba, but Nixon shut it down.

Hunt talks about the great deal of money that's not been covered, "and what we've been getting has been coming in, un, [very minor dribs and drabs.]

Well, and while we get third and fourth hand reassurances, still, the ready is not available.

And, that's a basic problem.

The apparent, uh, unconcern, on some hesitancy prior to the election. Of course we're aware of the upcoming problems of the Senate.

Colson - But the Democrats made such an issue out of it.

Hunt - On the other hand they kept it from themselves, the real issue.

Divert the Democrats from the real issue?

Now, I could transcribe a lot more here to pinpoint what Watergate was truly about, but I think I'll stop here, and allow the reader to listen for themselves, to undertake their own opinion of what they believe Hunt and Colson are speaking about, what I understand their conversation to be is the fact that Hunt and company had concerns on the hesitancy prior to the elections, which was to invade Cuba. The Bay of Pigs had haunted Hunt which he, along with others involved needed the funds to infiltrate Cuba, and Sturgis had always wanted to recapture Cuba since 1961.

You don't have to take my word for it, Hunt's entire conversation was regarding promises made that were broken, Cuba's freedom.

This IS/WAS what Watergate was truly about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwNYgiVv-rs

[Scott Kaiser]

Now I can't wait to get into JFK, sorry, I couldn't resist, lol...

[Scott Kaiser]

Just wanted to share J. E. Hoovers original signature on this document, thought it was pretty cool that the information was important enough to send directly to Hoover and not some low level agents handling the case, oh hum, oh well.

Rudy - shit that was about something, damn, that was 40 years ago when I drove your father to the CIA's Headquarters in Miami Beach, that was 1971, and your dad, shit man I don't know how he did it, but after he got what he wanted he could have destroyed the CIA with the information he had.

Scott - I know. What he stole from the CIA was prior to Watergate, and um, that explains why he never showed them to Liebengood, after reaching out to Liebengood, those documents were his free "get out of jail" card. A card he played often. (Laughs.)