PDA

View Full Version : Nixon was also targeted for assassination



Scott Kaiser
05-10-2014, 03:17 PM
From what I was able to dig up by talking to others and AJ Weberman who happened to be at the VVAW Convention at Miami Beach in 1972, including information discovered in the Howard S. Liebengood papers, is that Frank Sturgis was recruiting my father for the assassination of Nixon. According to some documents my father was suppose to deliver silencers for the weapons to be used. My father and Frank went around Miami handing out business cards while representing themselves as working for Hemming's gun company. When Hemming found this out he apparently got pissed, Hemming called Frank and told him, he and Kaiser needed to stop representing themselves as employees. My father also worked for Mitch Werbell.

Sense the two assassination attempts were unsuccessful, (because Ed Kaiser went to the FBI) and Nixon would not stop pressuring DCI Helms for all the documents on the BOP, the CIA than plotted the Watergate break-ins that forced Nixon to resign.

Nixon merely hired the plumbers to stop the leaks coming out of the White House, however, I don't believe Nixon knew that his plumbers would soon turn to burglars. (Remember, the leaks were not coming out of the Watergate hotel, but out of the White House and Kissinger was the prime suspect.)

It was the perfect set up, the doors were left unlocked, tape left on the outside of the door handle and Barker's address book was discovered in the hotel room where they were staying, it was Barkers address book that would ultimately connect Nixon. WH - HH.

The million dollar question is "why". Why did they want to assassinate Nixon, and why was there Watergate? There were no photo's at the Watergate building that I know of and Larry O'Brien's office was never searched or bugged. so why Watergate?

Well, Nixon who was VP to Eisenhower helped create Op 40, planned the BOP and was against Castro's communist party. BUT! When Nixon got into office everything the Cuban people worked so hard for to get rid of Castro came to a complete stop. Nixon shut down the only CIA activities going on in Cuba at that time. Eugenio Martinez was among the thirty remaining "Frogmen" stationed in Moa Bay Cuba when Nixon shut it all down. Thirty (30) remaining frogmen's covert ops came to a complete stop and were advised to shut down CIA operations in Cuba and return back to the states. Guess who's idea it was to have Nixon assassinated? When the two failed attempts occurred they had Nixon removed from office. Who is they you ask? Why The CIA.

David Guyatt
05-11-2014, 10:46 AM
Somebody certainly had it in for Nixon, which when you consider his right-wing credentials, was peculiar at the time.

Tracy Riddle
06-07-2014, 11:03 AM
Interesting, Scott; it sounds very plausible. Let me guess: if they had successfully killed Nixon, they would have set up some "pro-Castro" patsy to take the blame and make it look like Castro was responsible.

David, Nixon wasn't that right-wing at all. He was really irritating the right-wingers of his day (the Reagan-Bircher-Cold Warrior wing of the GOP) with his overtures to Red China and the USSR, cutting the military budget, withdrawing troops from Vietnam, nuclear arms treaty with Brezhnev, creating the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, etc.

A shadowy coup from the Right to put Spiro Agnew in power is very believable. Agnew really was a right-winger, but of course he had to resign for other reasons.

Magda Hassan
06-07-2014, 12:41 PM
Yes, Nixon is a most interesting creature. Many of his policies were very good. No matter the motives which moved him. Clearly he was a moral vacuum and conniving and ruthlessly ambitious. But compared to today's Republicans he is full of love peace and Woodstock. Well, almost. He wasn't one of 'them' and I don't doubt tptb may have wanted him removed one way or another.

Peter Lemkin
06-07-2014, 07:48 PM
If I wasn't a pacifist, I'd advance Nixon's name as one of those 'leaders' who really deserved something like that.....some self-incriminating evidence....

White House tape recordings, April 25, 1972:
President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?
National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen [thousand] …
Nixon: See, the attack in the North [Vietnam] that we have in mind … power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
May 2, 1972:
Nixon: America is not defeated. We must not lose in Vietnam. … The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed to smithereens. If we draw the sword, we’re gonna bomb those bastards all over the place. Let it fly, let it fly.


“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute

Lauren Johnson
06-07-2014, 08:33 PM
If I wasn't a pacifist, I'd advance Nixon's name as one of those 'leaders' who really deserved something like that.....some self-incriminating evidence....

White House tape recordings, April 25, 1972:
President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?
National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen [thousand] …
Nixon: See, the attack in the North [Vietnam] that we have in mind … power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
May 2, 1972:
Nixon: America is not defeated. We must not lose in Vietnam. … The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed to smithereens. If we draw the sword, we’re gonna bomb those bastards all over the place. Let it fly, let it fly.


“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute


Who pulled Nixon back from the brink? Henry the K, of all people?

Peter Lemkin
06-08-2014, 03:48 AM
If I wasn't a pacifist, I'd advance Nixon's name as one of those 'leaders' who really deserved something like that.....some self-incriminating evidence....

White House tape recordings, April 25, 1972:
President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?
National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen [thousand] …
Nixon: See, the attack in the North [Vietnam] that we have in mind … power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
May 2, 1972:
Nixon: America is not defeated. We must not lose in Vietnam. … The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed to smithereens. If we draw the sword, we’re gonna bomb those bastards all over the place. Let it fly, let it fly.


“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute


Who pulled Nixon back from the brink? Henry the K, of all people?

Kissinger had/has more than enough blood on his hands! - he just was not totally insane enough to go along with using Nuclear Bombs on a developing nation who had never attacked the US. Nixon was totally insane - but in that regard, he was hardly the only recent President to fall into that category....::face.palm::

Scott Kaiser
06-08-2014, 05:03 PM
Interesting, Scott; it sounds very plausible. Let me guess: if they had successfully killed Nixon, they would have set up some "pro-Castro" patsy to take the blame and make it look like Castro was responsible.

David, Nixon wasn't that right-wing at all. He was really irritating the right-wingers of his day (the Reagan-Bircher-Cold Warrior wing of the GOP) with his overtures to Red China and the USSR, cutting the military budget, withdrawing troops from Vietnam, nuclear arms treaty with Brezhnev, creating the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, etc.

A shadowy coup from the Right to put Spiro Agnew in power is very believable. Agnew really was a right-winger, but of course he had to resign for other reasons.

Not to mention that Nixon also created the DEA, and that was a no, no in Miami.

Scott Kaiser
06-08-2014, 05:06 PM
If I wasn't a pacifist, I'd advance Nixon's name as one of those 'leaders' who really deserved something like that.....some self-incriminating evidence....

White House tape recordings, April 25, 1972:
President Nixon: How many did we kill in Laos?
National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen [thousand] …
Nixon: See, the attack in the North [Vietnam] that we have in mind … power plants, whatever’s left – POL [petroleum], the docks … And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no … I’d rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? … I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.
May 2, 1972:
Nixon: America is not defeated. We must not lose in Vietnam. … The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed to smithereens. If we draw the sword, we’re gonna bomb those bastards all over the place. Let it fly, let it fly.


“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” – Michael Ledeen, former Defense Department consultant and holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute


Who pulled Nixon back from the brink? Henry the K, of all people?

Kissinger had/has more than enough blood on his hands! - he just was not totally insane enough to go along with using Nuclear Bombs on a developing nation who had never attacked the US. Nixon was totally insane - but in that regard, he was hardly the only recent President to fall into that category....::face.palm::


Kissinger was also targeted for a farewell party.

Tracy Riddle
06-08-2014, 07:50 PM
Kissinger was smart enough to see that their whole foreign policy (China, USSR) would be blown apart by using nukes in Southeast Asia.

Magda Hassan
06-08-2014, 11:47 PM
Interesting, Scott; it sounds very plausible. Let me guess: if they had successfully killed Nixon, they would have set up some "pro-Castro" patsy to take the blame and make it look like Castro was responsible.

David, Nixon wasn't that right-wing at all. He was really irritating the right-wingers of his day (the Reagan-Bircher-Cold Warrior wing of the GOP) with his overtures to Red China and the USSR, cutting the military budget, withdrawing troops from Vietnam, nuclear arms treaty with Brezhnev, creating the EPA, OSHA, Clean Air Act, etc.

A shadowy coup from the Right to put Spiro Agnew in power is very believable. Agnew really was a right-winger, but of course he had to resign for other reasons.

Not to mention that Nixon also created the DEA, and that was a no, no in Miami.

I think Miami and a few other places did quite well out of the so called 'war on drugs'.

Lauren Johnson
06-09-2014, 12:03 AM
Scott, do you know why the attempts were bungled or were they "attempts" to send a message?

Scott Kaiser
06-09-2014, 05:51 AM
Scott, do you know why the attempts were bungled or were they "attempts" to send a message?

Lauren, this is the story I got, They wanted to put Agnew in office, but little did they know that he was under investigation for tax invasion.

They had every intention in taking out Nixon, my father went to the FBI with this information before it even happen, my father in his round about way tried to inform Libengood of this in his own round about way. I know that my father was seeking Federal and State pardons, in the early 70's, he was caught at the JFK airport on his arrival from Israel and arrested for a forged passport, but that's not what he was arrested for in Israel, he was already living there for three months before getting caught.

My father was arrested just after my father asked my mother to contact Sturgis telling him where he was, not even Sturgis knew my father was in Israel, my father didn't trust anyone.

After my mother informed Sturgis of my father's whereabout my father was arrested, this was in 1976. My father knew he was set up.

Getting back to Nixon's assassination attempt, my father asked not only for Federal and State pardons because he was the sixth burglar in Watergate, but he was also asking for family and witness protection from the FBI in exchange for his testimony. The FBI / government refused, so my father gave them nothing regarding the photo's he had.

The FBI never knew about the photo's only the CIA did, and it's noted on their paper work.

The CIA contacted the FBI and I don't know how they got them to drop the charges against my father for that forged passport into Israel, so the FBI photo lab sent over some paper work stating, due to specific identifiable uncharacteristic the photo's of K-1 and Q-1 cannot be determined whether they are the same individual. My mother knew why.

My mother is the one who drove my father to the FBI's office where upon his arrival he informed them that Nixon was to go down at the VVAW convention. I'm not sure if Nixon still spoke there or if his speech was called off, or if he gave a latter speech, or what.

All I know is that Nixon was suppose to be assassinated that day, and my father had it stopped.

David Andrews
06-09-2014, 03:42 PM
It's situation that needs puzzling out. Nixon prosecuted the Vietnam war ferociously, which meant that more money was being spent and made in the war industry, and more opium was traded to pay for it and generate other profits. Is it because Nixon threatened to end the cash flow abruptly with nuclear weapons that he was axed? The whole point of the war was to keep it going without victory.

It is difficult to believe, however, that Nixon sought detente with Russia and China on his own initiative. However much he aspired to statesmanship, he lacked the stuff for it. And these detentes were grand-scale efforts that had to be coordinated over advance periods in diplomacy - diplomacy that deeply involved Nixon's minder, Kissinger, the Rockefellers' man. It would seem that the point of these detentes was to appease Russia and China, neutralize a nuclear response from those quarters, and keep the Vietnam war going under tripartite consent with the US.

It has to have been the nuclear weapons threat, or a combination of that and domestic Nixon threats, that made Nixon seem off the rails, a danger to the Vietnam enterprise. At the deciding point Haig, the Rockefellers' hatchet man, was put in to terminate Nixon's second administration.

Still - its difficult to see how Nixon could have not known the game plan intended for Vietnam, and not stuck with it. Perhaps his nuclear threat was rightly perceived as madness, a sweeping of the board that would disrupt all play. Perhaps the ideal of statesmanship dangled before him with the detente initiatives went to his head. Perhaps Nixon would not give in to defeat under domestic criticism as did LBJ, and Nixon's response to that pressure was to seek to score a nuclear smash victory for Nixon.

The idea of replacing Nixon with Agnew - as much as the assassination attempts on Ford - is quite indicative of the cynicism with which the presidency was regarded by the money powers. But what am I talking about - that had already been demonstrated in Dallas, 1963. Didn't Nixon understand that play?

Scott Kaiser
06-09-2014, 04:08 PM
Sorry folks, the year was 1973 Nixon was suppose to be assassinated not 72. I made a mistake in the year, it was one year before he resigned.

I have a document with Nixon's name on it showing he did in-fact speak at the VVAW and the year was 1973, this is when he was suppose to be assassinated not 72, my mistake.

Also, Nixon is the one who stopped the VN war, he drew up the paper work and passed it on to his predecessor Ford who actually ended the VN war.

Roger Stone has contacted me, we spoke over the phone for a while, he's asking for all my paper work on Nixon and all my Libengood papers over Watergate and my father's conversation with Libengood to use in his book which comes out in ten days, I don't know if this will hurt me or help me when my book comes out. I wish, I knew what to do. ::sad::

Scott Kaiser
06-09-2014, 04:13 PM
It is difficult to believe, however, that Nixon sought detente with Russia and China on his own initiative. However much he aspired to statesmanship, he lacked the stuff for it. And these detentes were grand-scale efforts that had to be coordinated over advance periods in diplomacy

This wasn't Nixon's doing, this was Kissinger doing, Nixon played along. I explain all this in my book.

David Andrews
06-09-2014, 05:09 PM
It is difficult to believe, however, that Nixon sought detente with Russia and China on his own initiative. However much he aspired to statesmanship, he lacked the stuff for it. And these detentes were grand-scale efforts that had to be coordinated over advance periods in diplomacy

This wasn't Nixon's doing, this was Kissinger doing, Nixon played along. I explain all this in my book.

What I was saying, in my own way. But Kissinger was the Rockefellers' man, and I gave my theory for their interest in detentes that would allow consensual continuation of the war.

Magda Hassan
06-10-2014, 02:17 AM
Roger Stone has contacted me, we spoke over the phone for a while, he's asking for all my paper work on Nixon and all my Libengood papers over Watergate and my father's conversation with Libengood to use in his book which comes out in ten days, I don't know if this will hurt me or help me when my book comes out. I wish, I knew what to do. ::sad::

Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

Scott Kaiser
06-10-2014, 03:22 AM
Roger Stone has contacted me, we spoke over the phone for a while, he's asking for all my paper work on Nixon and all my Libengood papers over Watergate and my father's conversation with Libengood to use in his book which comes out in ten days, I don't know if this will hurt me or help me when my book comes out. I wish, I knew what to do. ::sad::

Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

Magda Hassan
06-10-2014, 05:34 AM
As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.
Indeed. Our ongoing search for knowledge is a co-operative endeavour. When we can we should all share and help each other. It make it easier for all of us in the end.

David Guyatt
06-10-2014, 06:29 AM
Roger Stone has contacted me, we spoke over the phone for a while, he's asking for all my paper work on Nixon and all my Libengood papers over Watergate and my father's conversation with Libengood to use in his book which comes out in ten days, I don't know if this will hurt me or help me when my book comes out. I wish, I knew what to do. ::sad::

Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

I'm with Magda here. I've usually found that freely helping other authors with their research is a good thing, and that most appreciate it. There's exceptions to this rule, of course, a few people who abuse your generosity, but that's to be expected.

Peter Lemkin
06-10-2014, 09:51 AM
Roger Stone has contacted me, we spoke over the phone for a while, he's asking for all my paper work on Nixon and all my Libengood papers over Watergate and my father's conversation with Libengood to use in his book which comes out in ten days, I don't know if this will hurt me or help me when my book comes out. I wish, I knew what to do. ::sad::

Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

I'm with Magda here. I've usually found that freely helping other authors with their research is a good thing, and that most appreciate it. There's exceptions to this rule, of course, a few people who abuse your generosity, but that's to be expected.

Scott, I'd only advise you, if you give him the materials to sign an understanding with both him and his publisher, that you are to be given clear credit for the materials. That will help both your reputation and your book when it comes out, IMO.

Magda Hassan
06-10-2014, 10:44 AM
Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

I'm with Magda here. I've usually found that freely helping other authors with their research is a good thing, and that most appreciate it. There's exceptions to this rule, of course, a few people who abuse your generosity, but that's to be expected.

Scott, I'd only advise you, if you give him the materials to sign an understanding with both him and his publisher, that you are to be given clear credit for the materials. That will help both your reputation and your book when it comes out, IMO.
Good advice Peter. And it would be the honourable thing to do.

Tracy Riddle
06-10-2014, 01:32 PM
It's situation that needs puzzling out. Nixon prosecuted the Vietnam war ferociously, which meant that more money was being spent and made in the war industry, and more opium was traded to pay for it and generate other profits. Is it because Nixon threatened to end the cash flow abruptly with nuclear weapons that he was axed? The whole point of the war was to keep it going without victory.

It is difficult to believe, however, that Nixon sought detente with Russia and China on his own initiative. However much he aspired to statesmanship, he lacked the stuff for it. And these detentes were grand-scale efforts that had to be coordinated over advance periods in diplomacy - diplomacy that deeply involved Nixon's minder, Kissinger, the Rockefellers' man. It would seem that the point of these detentes was to appease Russia and China, neutralize a nuclear response from those quarters, and keep the Vietnam war going under tripartite consent with the US.

It has to have been the nuclear weapons threat, or a combination of that and domestic Nixon threats, that made Nixon seem off the rails, a danger to the Vietnam enterprise. At the deciding point Haig, the Rockefellers' hatchet man, was put in to terminate Nixon's second administration.

Still - its difficult to see how Nixon could have not known the game plan intended for Vietnam, and not stuck with it. Perhaps his nuclear threat was rightly perceived as madness, a sweeping of the board that would disrupt all play. Perhaps the ideal of statesmanship dangled before him with the detente initiatives went to his head. Perhaps Nixon would not give in to defeat under domestic criticism as did LBJ, and Nixon's response to that pressure was to seek to score a nuclear smash victory for Nixon.

The idea of replacing Nixon with Agnew - as much as the assassination attempts on Ford - is quite indicative of the cynicism with which the presidency was regarded by the money powers. But what am I talking about - that had already been demonstrated in Dallas, 1963. Didn't Nixon understand that play?


The American Establishment was deeply divided by the war. By 1968, the Euro-centered faction wanted to find a way out of Vietnam, while the Asia/Latin America-faction wanted to stay in and win. No one wanted the war to go on forever without victory. No country can sustain that, and the public wouldn't tolerate it. Look how close the US came to revolution in 1968-71. The whole point of the war was to secure control of the natural resources and markets of Southeast Asia, plus the heroin trade. And establish a permanent US military presence to support it all. Same thing they're trying to do in Afghanistan.

Scott Kaiser
06-10-2014, 03:19 PM
Not sure what's right for you either. That will need to be your decision. But I work on the assumption that the information always wants to be free. So I would encourage you to share away. Make it public and available. Your use of that information and your own story will make it unique. Other people will have their take on the information as it may relate to them. And that will be unique to them. That's their story. Together it is hoped that we all, you, me, everyone looking on, get a bigger and better picture of these hidden history. We all have a right to know. You especially.

As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

I'm with Magda here. I've usually found that freely helping other authors with their research is a good thing, and that most appreciate it. There's exceptions to this rule, of course, a few people who abuse your generosity, but that's to be expected.

Scott, I'd only advise you, if you give him the materials to sign an understanding with both him and his publisher, that you are to be given clear credit for the materials. That will help both your reputation and your book when it comes out, IMO.

I'm just now reading this, and it's GREAT! advise, thanks Peter!

Scott Kaiser
06-10-2014, 04:16 PM
As always, thank you for the kind words and helpful advise, I don't believe it could hurt me as I believe that I will go into more detail than Roger would on the subject, I'm beginning to think that helping my fellow authors by adding any missing pieces of this huge puzzle would allow us all to benefit from.

I'm sure if I was looking for information he would do the same, and help me out. And so, on that note, I'll be sure to get him what he needs before the release of his book. Thanks for the advise.

I'm with Magda here. I've usually found that freely helping other authors with their research is a good thing, and that most appreciate it. There's exceptions to this rule, of course, a few people who abuse your generosity, but that's to be expected.

Scott, I'd only advise you, if you give him the materials to sign an understanding with both him and his publisher, that you are to be given clear credit for the materials. That will help both your reputation and your book when it comes out, IMO.

I'm just now reading this, and it's GREAT! advise, thanks Peter!


Thanks Peter for the great advise, he agreed, he really is a nice guy over the phone, my mother also asked that I thank you for that advise, I've sent him everything I have on the Libengood papers, and showed him that Nixon did in-fact speak at the VVAW in 1973. I sent him that document too. Just hope my book can do as well for my mother who I really own everything to for keeping us safe, I dedicate this book to them, (my parents). I love you mom with all my heart, this is for you!