The Hoax

[Scott Kaiser]

Madga,

The hoax that Fidel Castro made a long speech the day after Kennedy's assassination is just that, a hoax, regardless of what we've been told, or what some of the anti-Castro Cubans informed me of the speech. By simply adding Castro made this speech the day after Kennedy was assassinated was just another desperate attempt to link Castro to Kennedy's assassination. The entire anomaly was to force the United States to invade Cuba.

The earliest speech Fidel Castro gave on Kennedy's assassination was dated November 28, 1963, not November 23, 1963 as most have implied, in-fact, it was this November 23, 1963 speech that was first reported by the Cuban government, only to buy time for Castro to respond regarding the assassination. If anyone were to study the entire speech, one would get that the speech was geared at accusing the American government while protesting his innocents. Although, we already know that any treachery on behalf of Castro in the assassination of Kennedy would be pretty stupid had Castro been involved in anyway, and what this earlier speech indicates is a hoax. Castro was able to buy the time needed to respond, and therefore, removing Castro and his government from the accusations of his involvement. In other words, it would make it that more difficult to invade Cuba. The cover-up, begins, and Johnson was able to avoid WWIII when the assassins pushed for a full invasion of Cuba over the assassination. In my publication I expose it all.

https://www.nsa.gov/news-features/declas...k00085.pdf

[Scott Kaiser]

^Edited.

[Scott Kaiser]

If anyone were to study the entire speech, one would get that the speech was geared at accusing the American government while protesting his innocents.

It was no secret that Fidel was anti-American, and the American's didn't think to highly of Castro. Fidel Castro needed to promptly respond to the assassination in a speech, or possibly face blatant accusations of his involvement, hindering at a quick response.

Fidel had two options, one, ignore the assassination altogether and continued to defy the great United States, or two, respond with accusations of his own, accusing the United States government of their own involvement that would remove the heat at invading Cuba. What it came down to was, who's accusing who.

[Scott Kaiser]

What it all came down to was, who's accusing who while overseeing away to avoid WWIII. The Warren Commission was the perfect place to start, delay, avoid, and accuse one man before it was all over with. Now... It's someone else's job to bring to light the truth while providing as much evidence as possible.

[Scott Kaiser]

But, why have the Warren Commission and not a Congressional Hearing in its place? At that time? Who knows what the outcome would've been like had one side of the House, the (Republicans) be in favor of invading Cuba, while on the other sides tension was of avoiding war.

The Warren Commission was the perfect fit to avoid all confrontations, and allow time to pass. The Commission was able to provide a substance like closure to all American's, or, at the very least, that was the plan while the Johnson administration was already faced with war, they wanted another war, and oust communism from 90 miles away from home. Johnson gave them their war, Vietnam, by recanting, or repeal the predecessors Executive Order, NSAM 263, this allowed two things to happen, one, avoid a possible retaliation with Russia had Cuba been invaded, and two, a continued war against communism, and if the Johnson administration could declare that peace can be won by war in Vietnam, than, the practical unanimity supported by the President, and Commission, in proving the accused, one man, Lee H. Oswald in the assassination, was in exchange for the sacrifice of a nation. That mantel, would be a lonely mantel for President Johnson, and President Johnson alone too bare, he had to do what he did, by forming the Warren Commission, or abdicate the role of leadership, which he did. Johnson would not run a second term.

Thank you!

[Scott Kaiser]

I apologize for my rudeness, and pass overzealous posts in the past. Perhaps, it was the wrong way of going about and getting attention, but, then I reminded myself, why do I need attention? When I already see things in a different light?

[Scott Kaiser]

Edited post #5.