Scott Kaiser

Because Taylor, Rostow, McNamara, Rusk and Bundy wanted to escalate the war Mr. Kennedy and Senator Mansfield are the two that saw things differently. I'm telling you Jim, and I hope that what I'm about to tell you, you'll allow it to sink in, digest it, research it, read about it, swallow it, absorb it, and take it in. Mr. Mansfield is the ONLY person whose report was considered by Kennedy to pull out of Vietnam.

Love it, funny DVP.... SMH... to this thread, lol.... That means laugh out loud!

1. Scott, its David Kaiser not you, and his book is American Tragedy. Please read the above carefully at post 20.

2. Then you are calling both John K Galbraith, and his son liars. Its also in Newman's book, which I consider pretty much the gold standard on the subject. Obviously you never read Virtual JFK or you could not say something that obtuse, which reminiscent of DVP or someone like Bob Carroll.

3. I already said that there was a group form Pentagon and State that wanted to send combat troops in, this included Taylor, Rostow, McNamara, Rusk and Bundy. This recommendation was based on the Taylor--Rostow report. Kennedy slammed the door on that.

He then commissioned the alternative report by JKG. This was later given to McNamara. That was in April of 1962; from then on in, McNamara is Kennedy's man on the withdrawal plan I mean he even told his assistant, Roswell Gilpatric, that he had been commissioned to put together a withdrawal plan. (Howard Jones, Death of a Generation, pgs.381-82) Once you put that together with the Sec Def meeting in May of 1963, and the October 2nd phone call referred to above, its pretty obvious that JFK had entrusted McNamara with this exit strategy.

Jim, what am I suppose to do? Am I suppose to concede because you're Jim? Are you telling me that you don't want me to be honest? Is this how it's suppose to work? I told you that JKG never met with Kennedy regarding his opinion about the Vietnam war, that "opinion" belongs to Kennedy, and Kennedy alone. Who Kennedy elect's to communicate with and send to Vietnam is Kennedy's decision, and Kennedy's decision alone as my second cousin Congressman Donald Irwin would say.

Jim, you're a good researcher, and I have nothing against you, I don't know you, but what reason do I have to lie? I've never been in politics as was my father, I never spoke up for Kennedy or spoke badly about him. I'm not a person that chooses sides. I'm not a conspiracy theorist nor do I believe Oswald acted alone. I am probably the single most liberal person when it comes to Kennedy.

There things you are very much unaware of. What if I told you that I do know for a fact that Oswald was not involved in Kennedy's assassination would you believe me? You'd want proof, you'd want to know how would a guy, someone like me would know something like this right? You'd want proof that what I'm saying is true right? What if I told you that not only was Oswald not involved, but I plan on exposing within my power to "prove" what I say is true, not some statement about what might be virtually true. I don't care what David Kaiser or the Pope wrote about Kennedy's assassination, can I get through to you on this?

Jim, it's a sad day when people start to listen to those who think they are just so much smarter then everyone else that degenerates, untruthful folks like me can't tell you the truth.

Bob:

We are not talking about Roger Craig and I don't think that Steve mentioned him.

From Post #1:

"The first three people who were on the scene when the rifle was found, Weitzman, Boone and Craig were all Sheriff's Deputies. In one way or another, they all identified it as a German make."

However, this is beside the point. What I am trying to stress is that anyone who claims to have read the calibre stamped on a Mauser rifle is full of beans.

How many times does one person have to be wrong before you begin to seriously question his work?

I'm pretty sure that Jim Hargrove wouldn't hesitate to add the Smithsonian to his list of plotters and/or cover-uppers in a heartbeat. After all, Jim said this to me just two weeks ago..

Some folks when building a Kitchen like to throw in the Kitchen sink as well, for some folks, they believe everyone and their mama did it... smh...

The Postal Money Oder, yes! It's a complete and utter forgery!

Although, I'm fairly certain, there are a few buttons here that can be pushed quit easily.

Couldn't get the elevator to work? How hard is it to push a button?

Did somebody screw up and plant the wrong shells?

I've been trying to determine why a 7.65 German Mauser had to be changed to a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano.

The first three people who were on the scene when the rifle was found, Weitzman, Boone and Craig were all Sheriff's Deputies. In one way or another, they all identified it as a German make. After the rifle was discovered, they were all ordered to stand down, turn the evidence over to the City authorities and return the Sheriff's Department. It was only after the Dallas City Department got a hold of the rifle was it changed to an Italian rifle.

Why?

Did the rifle have to match the caliber of the shells that were found? And by all accounts, it was the shells that were found first.

In his Sherifff's Report, Harry Weatherford said the he was with Luke Mooney, Eugene Boone, Ralph Walters and Sam Webster.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0260b.htm

In his Sheriff's Report, Ralph Walters said that by the time he got to the sixth floor, Officers Mooney and Grandstaff were already there and searching the floor. They told him that Webster and Victory had gone up to the seventh floor. Webster came to the head of the stairs and said they needed lights. Walters left and went back to the Sheriff's Department to get some lights. On the way back with the lights, he met up with L.C. Smith and Eugene Boone and they returned to the Depository. They took four lights up to the seventh floor and returned to the sixth floor "where Officers Mooney and Grandstaff were searching the floor".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0262a.htm

In his Sheriff's Report, Luke Mooney said that he was the only one on the sixth floor.

Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator, saying they wanted to go to their office. As the elevator started up, we went up one floor and the power to the elevator was cut off. I got out on the floor with these women and looked around in their office and I then took to the stairs and went to the 6th floor, and Officers Webster and Victory went up to the 7th floor. "I was the only person on the 6th floor when I searched it and was reasonably sure that there was no one else on this floor as I searched it" and then criss-crossed it, seeing only stacks of cartons of books.

L.C. Smith said the he was on the floor when Boone found the rifle, but he doesn't say he was right there and identified it.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0267b.htm

Seymour Weitzman filed an Affidavit and said that he and Boone found the rifle at the same time and he very definitely said that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=246&tab=page

In his Sheriff's Report, Eugene Boone said that an Officer Whitman of the Dallas City Police Department was with him when the rifle was found.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0263a.htm

Does anyone know of a report by, or any interviews with Officers Victory, Grandstaff , Webster or Whitman?

It would be nice to know what they had to say on the matter. It appears that none of them were called by the Warren Commission.

Steve Thomas

"Officers Webster, Victory, and myself took to the building. Officers Webster and Victory took the stairs and I told them I would take the freight elevator. At the time I got on the elevator two women who work in the building got on the elevator."

How could this be if in Roy Truly's testimony before getting edited and according to DPD Baker who said he encountered Oswald on the second floor said himself the freight elevator wasn't working?

There seems to be a lot of double talk going on.

SK: I especially told you that Galbraith had not gone to Vietnam, and I will tell you that Galbraith if he meet up with McNamara, it wasn't under the presidents direction. Secondly, Kennedy and McNamara did not see eye to eye about the Vietnam war when McNamara was "committed to more troops, and he wanted to escalate the war by using more military equipment," the very thing Mansfield and Kennedy were apposed to, it was until [after] president LBJ asked McNamara to resign in 1967 that he left office in 1968 only then did he have a change of heart towards the war.

​I hate to tell you this Scott, but what you write here is contradicted in the excerpts I just made.

1.) "Galbraith had received permission from Kennedy to visit Saigon on his way back to India, apparently because the president wanted to give him a chance to develop his skeptical views." from Kaiser

2.) "Kennedy sent my father to talk to McNamara. My father reported that he and McNamara saw the issues in the same way. So I think the most likely explanation for McNamara's pressing this position is very simple, Kennedy told him to. Kennedy and he were agreed in advance that this was the course of policy that they were going to follow. That was a position they didn't share with anybody else, or with virtually no one else." from Virtual JFK

At the beginning, in 1961, McNamara may have been for troop entry. This was not the case in 1962 and 1963 though. Its clear that, since he was in charge of the military that JFK wanted him to get the message that he was not going to commit combat troops into Vietnam. If the advisors did not do the trick, then he was going to get out.

What I like about this is quite simple: that is what happened. In May of 1963, at the Sec Def conference in Hawaii, McNamara supervised the large meeting of all defense departments and security departments from Vietnam and goes through every single department and asks them if they are on schedule for the withdrawal. When its all over, he says its not good enough, it has to be faster. Wheeler wrote a memo afterwards, saying that, from this meeting, he got the message the president would not tolerate any request for an extension. In fact, in November of 1963 Kennedy ordered an emergency evacuation plan.

In my opinion, whatever the phony debate about this previously, the documents of the ARRB have decided it. And we now can actually put it all together as to what Kennedy was doing, when and how he did it, why he did it, and how quickly LBJ and the CIA went along with the reversal, which, as many have noted, was underway as soon as the funeral was finished.

​And the odd thing is, McNamara went along with it. And he shut up about it all for 30 years.

1.) "Galbraith had received permission from Kennedy to visit Saigon on his way back to India, apparently because the president wanted to give him a chance to develop his skeptical views." from Kaiser

What are YOU talking about?!? I never said that!

2.) "Kennedy sent my father to talk to McNamara. My father reported that he and McNamara saw the issues in the same way. So I think the most likely explanation for McNamara's pressing this position is very simple, Kennedy told him to. Kennedy and he were agreed in advance that this was the course of policy that they were going to follow. That was a position they didn't share with anybody else, or with virtually no one else." from Virtual JFK

Should be called "virtual reality" this never happened!

At the beginning, in 1961, McNamara [may] have been for troop entry.

There is NO [may] McNamara wanted to go in with guns a blazing, send the whole damn United States if he could that's why he wanted Congress to over look the aptitude test so we could send in all the stupid people so they could get killed, and Kennedy was willing to aside with Senator Mansfield who I keep referring too who opposed the war, what part of that don't you understand?!?

it's always been my opinion that the "Vietnam" question as it allegedly relates to JFK's assassination has always been nothing more than a red herring brought up by conspiracy hobbyists in order to attempt to cast doubt over the motive behind JFK's murder.

It was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed JFK.

And I don't really think Oswald's motive for shooting Kennedy had anything whatsoever to do with the Vietnam situation.

It had much more to do with Oswald's status as a "pro-Castro sympathizer",

David, you sometimes make sense, I see you're wearing your flip flops. Oswald had nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination, why is that so hard for you to believe? But, seriously David, when does your opinion, your "honest opinion," theories and hypothesis count? SMH....

Jim, clam down and breathe. I'm not saying Galbraith wasn't part of Kennedy's White House "cabinet." My challenges to you have not been whether or not Galbraith had any communication with Kennedy. (You) said, "But right around this time, within a few weeks, he meaning (Kennedy) sent JKG to Saigon to give him a report and recommendation. I said, Jim, this is partially true, but you didn't want to believe me.

I especially told you that Galbraith had not gone to Vietnam, and I will tell you that Galbraith if he meet up with McNamara, it wasn't under the presidents direction. Secondly, Kennedy and McNamara did not see eye to eye about the Vietnam war when McNamara was "committed to more troops, and he wanted to escalate the war by using more military equipment," the very thing Mansfield and Kennedy were apposed to, it was until [after] president LBJ asked McNamara to resign in 1967 that he left office in 1968 only then did he have a change of heart towards the war.

Now, with all this said, I can careless about all the memos, letters, and late night phone calls to the president by Galbraith. Mr. Kennedy never, ever asked Galbraith to go to Vietnam and report back, that never happened. The more you try to veer off course, the less chance you will ever admit you're wrong. Listen, I have nothing to prove, I don't want a pat on the back on anything I may find and expose. I ask myself why in the hell did I find this and after 50 plus years that other good researchers did not? I even ask God, why me Lord? I don't care if I don't sell one book, but... If I had sold a billion books it's not because I'm hoping to get rich, it's because I want to tell a story no one has ever heard about, and if someone came to me with a billion dollars and said this is yours, I'd question why? My joy, happiness and excitement comes from getting the word out. I'm not in this for recognition. I can careless who reviews my book or not, it doesn't brother me if your views on the coup differ from mine. The only thing that matters to me is telling the truth, Martin asked for the truth, I simply gave it to him.

Whether you want to believe me or not is up to you, but it's you Jim who is not up to speed.

If you want, get my first book. I don't recommend it though only because my first book is 248 pages, my update is 328 pages. A lot of information is in there. I have even given away a few PDFs I'm sure some folks have already taken a sneak peek, what they haven't seen is the pertinent information I purposely left out. Trust me, you're gonna want to review this book. Good luck!

Of course I knew that he was ambassador to India.

That is why he was in good position to know what was going on in Vietnam, very short flight to Saigon.

I think we are talking about a different time frame with Mansfield.

As you know, I don't agree with you at all on the coup.

But of course! Slaps my forehead, Kennedy call JKG in India and asked him to hop on an airplane to Vietnam since the distance between Vietnam and India is 3190.14 km= 1982.26 miles. And, of course if you travel by airplane (which has average speed of 560 miles) between Vietnam to India, It takes 3.54 hours to arrive. But I think in those days planes were a little slower, don't quote me on that, as for the coup, you're entitled to your opinion, although, it's not always correct.

Scott:

Do you know how far it is from Washington to Saigon?

Jim, now, I may be wrong, rarely, but may be. What you want me to believe is this, JKG is in India, so, Kennedy wants JKG to go to VN, from VN travel to Washington, report to Kennedy.... THEN! Fly back to India, when Kennedy had already appointed Mansfield to fly from Washington, which he did, return back to Washington, which he did, report to Kennedy, which he did, give Kennedy his recommendation which he did, as Kennedy [knew' both he and Mansfield were opposed against the war, which he did.

But, rather than believing me you are still trying to find away out of this versus conceding a losing battle, I think you should reevaluate what I also have to say about the coup.

You see DVP! I don't discriminate, I believe in the equal opportunity to get picked on.

And, of course, like every good Ambassador, they should abandon their position to see what the hell is going on in Vietnam, well, crap! We no longer need Senator Mansfield anymore!

Of course I knew that he was ambassador to India.

That is why he was in good position to know what was going on in Vietnam, very short flight to Saigon.

I think we are talking about a different time frame with Mansfield.

As you know, I don't agree with you at all on the coup.

But of course! Slaps my forehead, Kennedy call JKG in India and asked him to hop on an airplane to Vietnam since the distance between Vietnam and India is 3190.14 km= 1982.26 miles. And, of course if you travel by airplane (which has average speed of 560 miles) between Vietnam to India, It takes 3.54 hours to arrive. But I think in those days planes were a little slower, don't quote me on that, as for the coup, you're entitled to your opinion, although, it's not always correct.

I almost forgot to tell you that JKG was in India from 1961-63. Not VN. I'm sure you already knew that.

His father, if you don't know, was John K. Galbraith, who was a key part of JFK's administration.

By the way, if in-case you didn't know who my father was, his name was Edwin Kaiser. The greatest patriot ever for the accomplishments he did to expose THIS countries treasonous acts.

In-fact, in my new update, I dedicate a few chapters to this. I'm still waiting on Stone's forward before I can proceed publishing.

Galbraith is not talking about the assassination, and he was never really all that interested in that.

His father, if you don't know, was John K. Galbraith, who was a key part of JFK's administration.

When, in 1961. everyone in Kennedy's White House wanted him to commit combat troops to Vietnam, JFK declined and only sent advisors. But right around this time, within a few weeks, he sent JKG to Saigon to give him a report and recommendation. JKG came back and told him it had no possibility of success, it was a hopeless quagmire and he should cut his losses.

Kennedy told JKG to meet with McNamara and give him the results of his report. And from then on in, Kennedy had McNamara play the role of the man who wanted us to get out of Vietnam in the internal debates.

This was all disguised, attenuated, neutered afterwards because of LBJ's insistence that it all be changed and covered up by saying he really did not do anything different than Kennedy did, which was a lie and LBJ knew it was a lie. But McNamara went along with it. Until finally he resigned in 1967--after Salinger, Ball, Bundy and McCone all had left.

When John Newman's book, JFK and Vietnam came out, Jamie Galbraith decided to go public with what his father told him about the whole JFK/RSN/JKG triangle which came to fruition in October of 1963 with NSAM 263 and McNamara's reports to the press that the withdrawal program would be beginning soon with a thousand man increment.

Jamie Galbraith made a key contribution to an important book on this subject, James Blight's Virtual JFK. In which, for the first time, a sizable group of historians and scholars--after a two day debate-- decided that Kennedy was going to withdraw from Vietnam. And as Gordon Goldstein later wrote in his fine book Lessons in Disaster, there was no change made in policy after the death of Diem.

IMO, Jamie Galbraith's contribution to this paradigm shift is large.

Jim, this is partially true, but it was Senator Mansfield who Kennedy sent to Vietnam and who reported back to Kennedy what the Diem brother's were doing with the money the United States gave them, it was during the few months of culmination that plan plots to exit the Diem brother's out of Vietnam started, however, China didn't want them, after a poorly drafted cable was written up, Kennedy signed it, he believed it to be a coup without an assassination. The CIA interpreted the cable as assassinating the Diem brother's. Kennedy was upset over the fact a round table discussion didn't take place first before the assassination.

Martin - You want the truth? That is the truth.

I believe it's no secret what Kennedy's intention was for Vietnam?

The drift seems clear enough: the Diem government is failing and there is no reason to think a replacement would be better. But the references to “great progress” leave room for doubt. Withdrawal with victory or without it? Taylor Report with respect to the final date of 1965 as leaving an “out” for the case where the military situation might turn sour. In two years and two months, much can happen, as events would prove. But as Scott already pointed out to Chomsky in 1993, the primary record available to date has been heavily edited. Documents from November 1, 1963, through early December are conspicuously missing. So, we now learn, are many others In January 1998, again under the supervision of the ARRB, about 900 pages of new materials were declassified and released from the JCS archives. These include important records from May 1963, from October, and from the period immediately following Kennedy’s death; many had been reviewed for declassification in 1989 but were not declassified at that time. They clarify considerably the nature of the “presently prepared plans” referred to in the McNamara-Taylor third recommendation, and they give the military leadership’s interpretation of the direction they were getting from JFK. Since it is well known that the Pentagon did not favor withdrawal, it is fair to assume that if wiggle room existed in the President’s instructions it would surface in these documents.

First I'd like to point out the reason for the transcripts and tapes that [may] have stopped on November 7, 1963, could it be because of the assassination of the Diem brother's on November 2, 1963? This passage quoted above certainly sounds as though the JCS and the Pentagon is who should be responsible for Kennedy's assassination. Aside from all the hoopla, theories and educated language, is there any real proof that's being offered up here? Ouch! my head hurts.

Let me guess, some folks believe Kennedy was assassinated over Vietnam? Was Watergate also over Vietnam? Didn't they plot to assassinate Nixon too? Didn't Nixon end the war in Vietnam? Were the burglars at Watergate apart of wanting to keep the Vietnam war going? Was it really over communism on the other side of the world, or right here in our own backyard, if the company was willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to assassinate Castro who was very hard to get too, how much do you think they were paid to get to Kennedy in an open limo just waiting for the right time.

I could write a book on this, oh wait, I did, my update.

Roger Stone was a political adviser to Trump, he was never his campaign manager. Trump dumped him months ago, which doesn't mean that Trump doesn't agree with Stone on JFK.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/trump-ends-relationship-with-longtime-political-adviser-roger-stone/

An amazing thing to me about the linked article is that it's dated August 8, 2015. I know that time flies, but surely it wasn't August of last year that Trump made his disparaging remarks about Megyn Kelly, was it? Geez. I'm getting old fast enough as it is.

As for Trump acting as a spoiler to guarantee Hillary's win, I don't know why an egomaniacal billionaire would spend so much time, effort, and money to be a lackey for the Clintons. I don't get that argument. Trump has a real shot at being president. He's not doing it for Hillary Clinton. In fact Hillary Clinton is what gives him a real shot at being president.

Campaign manger, head political adviser, what's the difference? Perhaps. I shouldn't have asked, I may end up getting a 50 page SA, to me. it's all the same. Trump is running for president, and Stone is advising/managing as his political strategist.

Here is the only video I could find that Stone says he fired Trump, Trump, an hour later said to a CNN reporter that he fired Stone. However, I can't seem to find any record of Trump saying this in his own words

CNN has never released any interview by Trump saying he fried Stone:

CNN has also banned Stone from appearing on behalf of Trump because of the Meagan Kelly and Trump falling out with Fox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxtblX00yvg

If you plan on entering the ring, be prepared to get hit in a political manner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wEVpBPAt0s

If Donald Trump were to become president of the United States would he consider establishing one last Congressional Hearing to hold on the assassinations of MLK, RFK and JFK.

Mr. Trump's champagne manger was Roger Stone, and Mr. Stone certainly does not believe in the lone assassin theory. Could there be a road to pave to get our next president to re-open this case while at the same time question the reason the Warren Commission selected witnesses they felt were appropriate while omitting vital, crucial witnesses that may have offset the record.

Could the Warren Commission's Report ever be challenged and it's findings, now that so much information as been brought about?

Could this president not be regarded as the president who's bought and paid for by Wall Street, or any three letter agency, but would advocate for the release of all Federally withheld documents on or before October 17, 2017?

Would Donald Trump dare stand up to a government that has not adhered to JFK 1992 Act by releasing all information in full, however, all we've received has been political concealment.

Could Donald Trump be that president who's for the people as we the people have a God given right to know what this country is doing, as paying tax payers, are these politicians not regarded to answer to the people, those who we elect in office?

Now, speaking as Scott Kaiser, will the Donald have the balls to re-open Kennedy's assassination if he were elected president?