Scott Kaiser

Exactly how many of the members of the CIA along with 95% of the Cuban population in Miami felt about Kennedy, but Kennedy didn't have the chance to step down he was already preparing for a second term, they just made sure he would not win.

True, he could be guilty of a conspiracy, but he would not be guilty of murder, because in this case, a different assassin killed her than the assassin that the husband hired. He might be deplorable, but legally the husband in this case is not guilty of murder. In the same way, if we want to find those who are truly guilty of the murder of JFK (aside from LHO) we need to first identify the actual assassins; and not simply stop when we find somebody who threw money at any assassin who promised to get the job done. There were probably 100 plots of JFK just as there were probably 100 plots against Castro. I speculate that all those plots made lots of money for the assassins who promised to get the job done. Only a tiny few of those assassins actually killed JFK. So only a few of those financiers are actually guilty of murder. --Paul Operation 40 started out with 40 men, and ended with 86 men altogether, can you identify, meaning name ALL 86 assassins?

So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her. Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too? Scott First, Scott, I'm not saying that the financiers were innocent, I'm saying that of the thousands of financiers who paid boasters and frauds to kill Kennedy, only those financiers who actually paid the actual killers, the tiny few, were actually guilty of a conspiracy. In other words, if husband pays assassin Y to kill his wife, but separately and unknown to the husband, her butler pays assassin Z to kill her, and assassin Z actually kills her, then the butler is guilty of conspiracy and the husband is innocent. Conversely, if assassin Y kills her, then the butler is innocent of conspiracy, but the husband is guilty. Same way with the JFK assassination. Even if you had video tape that shows rich-man AA giving a million bucks to hit-man BB to kill JFK, that would mean nothing unless you could also prove that hit-man BB was the hit-man who actually killed JFK. This is relevant because Assassination Science can name dozens, scores, perhaps a hundred or more possible shooters of JFK. There were so many plots in the Mafia, among rogue CIA elements, the Jimmy Hoffa guys, the Cuban Exiles, the Russian Exiles, the German ex-Nazis, and what not, that we must first of all reach a consensus which of these many plots was the one that actually succeeded. Then and only then can we identify which financiers were the guilty ones. Yes - they were all deplorable. But only a few were actually guilty. Yes, money talks. But not all money screams and swears. And not all money hits the mark. We must be more particular. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Okay! Now I am greatly confused... I would think that if the wife would have been killed by "Z" who was unknown to be the killer to the husband and "Y" didn't do it because the murder plan was carried out sooner then planed then how does that allow the husband or "Y" off the hook? I mean the murder took place and everyone was in on it according to any prosecutor whether it was prior or after the fact. The only circumstantial evidence was that "the husband and butler" was plotting her death. How does that, in a court of law excluded the husband of conspiracy to comment murder? By the way, here is a little more on Pawley: David Price Cannon began researching the life of Ambassador William Douglas Pawley over 35 years ago. An aviation pioneer in Cuba and China. Founder of the Flying Tigers. Global entrepreneur. Diplomat in Peru and Brazil. Advisor to President's Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. An architect of U.S. covert policy. Coup plotter against governments in Guatemala and Cuba. A CIA covert agent. An organizer of Cuban exiles for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. A critic of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. A friend of Clare Boothe Luce, CIA Director Allen Dulles, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Senator James Eastland and foreign dictators. A name high on the witness list for the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassination's hearings at the time Pawley committed suicide. Although an Ambassador and a friend of Secretary of State George C. Marshall, William D. Pawley despised those in the State Department who believed diplomacy was superior to sabotage and subversion in Russia, Guatemala, Cuba and China. He fed his own paranoia and became its most vocal advocate. When President Kennedy failed to provide air cover during the Bay of Pigs invasion and hinted at detente instead of bombing Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, William Pawley not only criticized him but then partook in a project to discredit JFK. When Lee Harvey Oswald was barely known, Pawley, Clare Boothe Luce and their associates claimed Oswald was working for Castro. Counting Richard Nixon as an ally against communism, Pawley contributed heavily to his campaign and was stunned when President Nixon opened diplomatic talks with communist China, Pawley's enemy of 40 years. He soon titled his own biography Russia Is Winning and not long after its completion committed suicide. In the end, William Pawley who built planes in India to fight an airwar over China was unable to fathom that diplomacy could transform Mao's China from communism into one of the most powerful capitalistic societies in the world. This site outlines the content of the in-depth research David Price Cannon has accumulated about William Pawley. Queries should be made to pawleyinfo@aol.com Researching Pawley's life took decades because hundreds of documents relating to his covert activities during the 1950s and 60s were classified for three decades. They were finally made available through the combined efforts of the Mary Ferrell Foundation --http://www.maryferrell.org/ -- which provides online access to more than one million pages of declassified documents. The majority of them come from the Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington DC, run by James Lesar: http://www.aarclibrary.org Many additional details about William Douglas Pawley were found in the Pawley Collection at George C. Marshall Library in Lexington, Virginia: http://www.marshallfoundation.org The Flying Tiger years of William D. Pawley in China are illuminated by Daniel Ford: http://www.flyingtigersbook.com Lets not forget, that I remember Pawley as "uncle Sidney Saks".

I think that most aliens who don't want to get caught in Texas go to Missouri, that's because they don't want to go back to Mexico.

I'm sure we all experienced this at sometime or another.

I think it's inadequate to claim that because a wealthy person really hated Kennedy and associated with other wealthy people who hated Kennedy, that we have identified the killers of JFK. Far more proof is needed. These blanket statements are too general. Theoretically, of course, it makes sense that they would hope to kill Kennedy, and since they were wealthy it also makes sense that they would throw money at anybody who promised they would try to kill Kennedy. Many such money-throwers have been named over the past half-century, including Howard Hughes, Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante, Jimmy Hoffa, H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, Joseph Milteer and countless others. The fact that they threw money at countless mercenaries to kill Castro or to kill Kennedy might make them deplorable, but it doesn't prove they were the killers. I speculate that easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill Castro, and easily one hundred assassins were paid to try to kill JFK at some location or another. Now, were are all these financiers of all these assassins guilty of killing Kennedy? By no means. Only the few who actually succeeded in killing Kennedy would be guilty of the crime. We can't blame people generally just because they hated Kennedy with a purple passion, and possessed more than enough money to get the job done. The actual assassination wasn't as easy as it may appear. Just as only a few assassins were actually guilty of killing Kennedy (though a hundred tried to some degree), in the same way, only those few financiers who funded the actual killers are guilty of the conspiracy. I propose that in order to identify who the truly guilty financiers were, we must first and foremost identify at least the contours of the ground-crew who actually held the rifles and pulled the triggers. That demand, unfortunately, is too often treated as a 'minor detail' that will fall out as a result of identifying the financiers. I suggest the opposite. There were too many financiers to identify them with certainty. They resided in perhaps every single State of the USA. There were far too many. Focus on the ground-crew. Best regards, --Paul Trejo So what you're saying is for those men who are having to go through a bad divorce its okay to higher a killer to kill their wife and only be the financiers of the assassin and that doesn't make you involved? Okay then! that's cheaper then keeping her. Ummm Wrong again, Pawley who was apart of Operation 40 certainly mingled with less fortunate people, people who had no money, and yet hated Kennedy, take Sturgis and my father as example, as well as many of the Cubans at the time struggling to survive, although, my father liked Kennedy, Sturgis and many others hated Kennedy, however, both men mingled with the rich and both men were poor, so I don't get your way of thinking, another words if you were to say money talks I'd agree, Pawley financed several projects into Cuba. So what makes you think he couldn't finance Kennedy's assassination too? Scott

President Nixon’s “Plumbers” unit, tasked to plug media leaks from administration officials and outsiders to the media, burglarizes the Los Angeles office of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding to find damaging information on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst and patient of Fielding who leaked the “Pentagon Papers” to the media. [Gerald R. Ford Library and Museum, 7/3/2007] Ellsberg is a former Marine captain in Vietnam and protege of Henry Kissinger who had a change of heart over the war; he then leaked a secret set of Pentagon documents to the New York Times detailing how the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had secretly escalated the war in Vietnam (see June 13, 1971). Watergate Connection - One of the burglars is Eugenio Martinez, who later is arrested as one of the five Watergate burglars (see 2:30 a.m.June 17, 1972). Martinez and two others—Felipe de Diego and the mission leader, E. Howard Hunt, who will supervise the Watergate burglary—are all old “CIA hands” heavily involved in anti-Castro activities. Martinez is still active in the CIA, as is Hunt, whom he often refers to by his old CIA code name of “Eduardo.” Another Watergate burglar, CIA agent Bernard Barker, is also involved in the Ellsberg burglary. Martinez: Burglary a Near-Disaster - Hunt tells Martinez and Diego that they are to burglarize the offices of a “traitor” who is spying for the Soviet Union, and that the mission was ordered by the White House, where Hunt is now an aide. Barker tells the Cubans, “We have to find some papers of a great traitor to the United States, who is a son of a b_tch .” The men will become a unit outside the normal law enforcement and intelligence channels, operating within but not part of the CIA, FBI, and “all the agencies,” Martinez will later recall. They buy photographic equipment at Sears, and Hunt and Diego use disguises—wigs, fake glasses, false identification, and voice-altering devices. “Barker recognized the name on Hunt’s false identification—Edward J. Hamilton—as the same cover name Eduardo had used during the Bay of Pigs,” Martinez will recall. The planning, Martinez will recall, is far looser and less meticulous than “anything I was used to in the [CIA].” A disguised Hunt and Diego, masquerading as delivery men, deliver the photographic equipment to the office; later that night, they and Martinez break in and rifle the office. Martinez will write that Hunt and de Diego looked “kind of queerish” in their disguises, with their “Peter Lorre-type glasses, and the funny Dita Beard wigs” (see February 22, 1972). Before the break-in, Barker, who does not enter, whispers to Martinez, “Hey, remember this name—Ellsberg.” Martinez does not recognize the name. [Harper's, 10/1974; Reeves, 2001, pp. 369] Comedy of Errors - The burglars wait for hours until the cleaning lady leaves for the night, and find the door to the building locked. At that point, a fifth man, “George,” whom Martinez learns is G. Gordon Liddy, another of the Watergate burglars also involved in the Ellsberg planning, appears and tells them to break in through a window. [Harper's, 10/1974] Three burglars—Bernard Barker, Felipe de Diego, and Eugenio Martinez—perform the actual break-in, while Hunt and Liddy act as lookouts. [Reeves, 2001, pp. 369] The burglary is quickly turning into a comedy of errors, Martinez will recall. “This was nothing new. It’s what the Company did in the Bay of Pigs when they gave us old ships, old planes, old weapons. They explained that if you were caught in one of those operations with commercial weapons that you could buy anywhere, you could be said to be on your own. They teach you that they are going to disavow you. The Company teaches you to accept those things as the efficient way to work. And we were grateful. Otherwise we wouldn’t have had any help at all. In this operation it seemed obvious—they didn’t want it to be traced back to the White House. Eduardo told us that if we were caught, we should say we were addicts looking for drugs.” Martinez finds nothing concerning Ellsberg in the office except for Fielding’s telephone book, which Martinez photographs. Before leaving, Martinez spills some pills from Fielding’s briefcase—“vitamin C, I think”—over the floor to make it seem as if the burglars had broken in looking for drugs. As they leave the office, Martinez spots a police car trailing them, but they are not stopped. “I thought to myself that the police car was protecting us. That is the feeling you have when you are doing operations for the government. You think that every step has been taken to protect you.” Failure; Training for Bigger Mission? - Martinez feels that the burglary is a failure, but Hunt insists that they celebrate anyway. Martinez tells Diego that the break-in must either be a training exercise for a more important mission to come, or it was a cover operation for something else. “I thought to myself that maybe these people already had the papers of Ellsberg. Maybe Dr. Fielding had given them out and for ethical reasons he needed to be covered. It seemed that these people already had what we were looking for because no one invites you to have champagne and is happy when you fail,” he will write. Martinez’s CIA supervisor is strangely uninterested in the incident. “I was certain then that the Company knew about his activities,” Martinez will write. “But once again my CO did not pursue the subject.” [Harper's, 10/1974] Hunt telephones Plumbers supervisor Egil Krogh at 4 a.m. to report that the burglary was a success but they found no files on Ellsberg. [Reeves, 2001, pp. 369] Entity Tags: ’Plumbers’, Dita Beard, Central Intelligence Agency, E. Howard Hunt, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard M. Nixon, Egil Krogh, Henry A. Kissinger, Eugenio Martinez, Lewis Fielding, Felipe de Diego, Federal Bureau of Investigation, G. Gordon Liddy, Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz.

Scott, Your father died when you were very young. Lets get the facts straight, my father was killed when I was thirteen Maybe this isn't the best place for you to work out and attempt to resolve issues you did not have the opportunity to work out with your father. Please enlighten me Tom, what issues are you talking about? What issues do you think I have not worked out with my father? Consider that you have some of us at a disadvantage because of our empathetic allowances for the intensely emotional and other personal foundations for your resolute expression of your political beliefs. Okay! Whatever! You react though, as if John was coming at you. Because I said, "You are comparing Hitler to Luis?"... Please tell me what I said that made me think John was attacking me? Or in your words coming at me. I had no idea you read minds too. You need to understand that some of us consider your political opinions to be extremist and simplistic. Well, lets see, you talk about Venezuelan. I'm going to also use Cuba as an example, the "president" of Cuba calls himself Dr. Castro, the "president" of Venezuelan calls himself president, the problem I have politically is that neither is a president they are dictators or rulers of their country that forms to a state that is controlled by the police and not the people, they are forced to live how they are told to live or the people will be charged with treason, shot and killed. Hugo Chavez who calls himself president has been sense 1999 that's thirteen years, that's not a president, that's a dictator. Chavez has been a prominent opponent of the United States' foreign policy.[1] Allying himself strongly with the socialist governments of Fidel and then Raul Castro in Cuba, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, his presidency is seen as a part of the leftist "pink tide" sweeping Latin America. You say we have different views on politics, we do. I'm a patriot not a "terrorist". Scott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaMoK4qbG38

Of course, this is the same argument put forward by terrorists in Afghanistan. I am afraid everybodies "terrorist" is always someone's "freedom fighter". The fact that he is "down to earth, truthful and honest" is completely irrelevant. Even Hitler was kind to dogs. You are comparing Hitler to Luis? If Hitler and Castro had they're way we would ALL live under a dictator, under communism, the very blanket Luis was fighting against. He and my father fought for freedom, not communism.

Deleted!

I heard it was a .45

Yeah! Didn't you hear that two little green men shot and killed the president? I don't think they had there green card with them.

First, Felix doesn't owe anyone a Rolex, Che paid for it in full with blood money, secondly, I don't know why everyone calls Luis a terrorist, I've met him, he's down to earth, truthful and honest, there is a big difference between a terrorist and a Patriot when you are fighting for the freedom of your people. What about Castro sending his men to locate and kill Posada, don't let Castro's humanity BS talk have you beleive in the good for all man kind. That's Bull Sh*t, Castro is a killer, he's nothing like John Kennedy and never really wanted peace with Kennedy, he's a xxxx, and Castro is going down this year.

Felix yes, Posada no, Che was Fidel's killer of the people, he murder and killed people without a trail. I think it is on this video Jose talks about Felix. Did you know that they also cut the hands off of Che? That is how Felix kept Che's Rolex watch.

Nino Diaz, Cajin, Eugenio Martinez, Luis Posada, Jose Pujol, Felix Rodriguez, Tony Calatayud, Frank Castro and Rolando Masferrer all very good people, nice people, good fellas, my friends. As I have told my friends Tony and Jose, when I was talking to them, seeing them, it was like my father was present with us.

Dear Fidel, You certainly have succeeded in hiding behind closed doors, your political views as a ruthless dictator will keep the USSR from saving your skin, many have died, giving their lives for freedom as you rose to power. Your obsession for power mislead those who sought Democracy on a small and tiny island, your promise for free elections fell on deaths ears as money began to corrupt your life, there will be no one there to save you, not even your children. Because of you, groups and cells have been created to fight for freedom, and many of these "Freedom Fights" almost gave up, many of whom had a hard time trusting in who is who, you speak of the unwarranted invasions caused by the Yankees and do not acknowledge the many deaths and murders caused by your own G-2 men. This year, I promise you, you and your brother will fall, Cuba will announce its freedom from Communism and hold free elections, those who have died for freedom will have not died in vain. Scott Kaiser

Deleted

Deleted

Yes! According to Eugenio Martinez, William Pawley was also apart of Operation 40, worked closely with Nixon. Sometime ago I posted my father's phone book page of Pawley's address and phone number, of coarse he is now dead and committed suicide due to shingles, some say he was in to much pain, however, I don't beleive that to be so, yes he may have had shingles, but I don't beleive he was in bad enough pain to comment suicide, when I was a kid I knew Pawley as "uncle Sidney Saks. It was when he was called to testify at the HSCA Committee he committed suicide exactly one month before my father was killed. Pawley was also a member of the Suite 8F group based in Texas. I GUARANTEE YOU some of the key players in that group killed JFK. Period - end of story. Suite 8F group: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2868 Agreed!

Yes! According to Eugenio Martinez, William Pawley was also apart of Operation 40, worked closely with Nixon. Sometime ago I posted my father's phone book page of Pawley's address and phone number, of coarse he is now dead and committed suicide due to shingles, some say he was in to much pain, however, I don't beleive that to be so, yes he may have had shingles, but I don't beleive he was in bad enough pain to comment suicide, when I was a kid I knew Pawley as "uncle Sidney Saks." It was when he was called to testify at the HSCA Committee he committed suicide exactly one month before my father was killed.

Yes! I agree with you, I'm not so sure if those photo's are of Bush and I too don't beleive that Nixon was directly involved, however, I do believe he had some knowledge of it. I am merely reporting my adventures in Miami, alot more of the direct information will be in my upcoming book. My basic theory on the JFK is this: Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil men Hunt and Murchison used their CIA/military connections to kill JFK. And the CIA folks they used were the ones who had been running operations and assassination attempts against Fidel Castro. Gen. Ed Lansdale - absolutely involved in JFK assassination. GHW Bush - almost certainly - at the *very least* GHW Bush knows who did it; more like he was one of the CIA planners at the tender age of 39. By then he was longtime CIA, personal family friends of Allen Dulles. If Ed Lansdale and Allen Dulles were involved, then I think it is almost certain that Nelson and/or David Rockefeller were involved - either by approving of it or being one of the key planners. Especially Nelson Rockefeller. And if the Rockefellers were involved, then Henry Kissinger has to know the inner workings of the JFK assassination. Henry Kissinger was moderating Bilderberger forums in the mid 1950's. Kissinger was extremely close to Nelson Rockefeller and was his top foreign policy aide. Meaning, Kissinger was associating with the most powerful people in the world EIGHT years before the JFK assassination. If you will notice Kissinger in 48 years has almost NEVER commented on the JFK assassiation. I can't find any record of him saying anything about this momentous event - he likes to blab about everything else under the sun. So Kissinger knows the truth, but he probably did not have the hierarchy back then to be planner of JFK's death, just someone in the loop. McGeorge Bundy - deep CIA, CFR, Vietnam hawk, he was a secretary of the CFR while Allen Dulles was the president of the CFR in 1949. McGeorge Bundy was later invited to a Bilderberg meeting by Rockefeller man Dean Rusk in the late 1950's. McGeorge Bundy's behavior on the day of the JFK assassination is simply unacceptable. He quickly and immediately started pushing the lone nutter theory when all the early evidence pointed to multiple shooters. That is not the action of a man looking out for US national security after the president has been murdered: letting the rest of the kill team get away. Some National Security Advisor he was! McGeorge Bundy assumed tremendous power over Lyndon Johnson post JFK assassination. Literally, he was telling LBJ what to do in detail. Bundy was also Skull and Bones at Yale just like GHW Bush. You can bet they worked together on the Bay of Pigs invasion as well. And they may very well have coordinated on the JFK assassination. Those are the folks who I think were involved in the JFK assassination. Not to mention that William Pawley also financed several of the projects, just as my father says at the Watergate Committee Hearings, that it was a business man and not a politician who financed several of the projects. My father somewhat identifies this person in his hand written notes. I have no doubt in my mind that it is Pawley my father is talking about, Pawley was also involved in Kennedy's assassination.

Yes! I agree with you, I'm not so sure if those photo's are of Bush and I too don't beleive that Nixon was directly involved, however, I do believe he had some knowledge of it. I am merely reporting my adventures in Miami, alot more of the direct information will be in my upcoming book.

In 1960 Richard Nixon recruited an “important group of businessmen headed by George Bush Sr. and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen, to gather the necessary funds for the operation”. I am talking about ‘Operation 40’, the group that Warren Hinckle and William Turner described in Deadly Secrets, as the ‘assassins-for-hire’ organization. In a speech given by John F. Kennedy, a threat was made to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces. Would it be a coincidence that George H.W. Bush had front row seats to Kennedy's assassination? Several researchers have identified George H.W. Bush Sr. in pictures taken at Dealey Plaza. It is also widely accepted that George H.W. Bush’s Zapata Oil Company was a CIA front for the Bay of Pigs Invasion. At some level, the same George H. W. Bush who has perpetually tried to deny his involvement with the CIA at this time. Prior to Watergate, E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis would often meet at our house in Hialeah to discuss their plans at Washington. Hunt who was working as a ‘plumber’ under Nixon at the time thought there to be very incriminating evidence against the crew that participated in the ‘Big Event.’ Frank tried recruiting Kaiser (my father) for Watergate, Frank mentioned to Hunt that no one could steal like Kaiser could. On May 7, 1990, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Frank Sturgis said, “The reason why we broke into the Watergate building was because Richard Nixon was interested in stopping the news leaks related to the photographs of our role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.” Nixon had always referred to Kennedy’s assassination using the code name ‘Bay of Pigs’ because that was part of Nixon’s downfall. In the meantime, Richard Nixon, who was running for the Presidency against John Kennedy became involved and convinced the CIA that if they could pull off the whole thing before the early November elections, he would win by a landslide. The CIA couldn’t pull it off, Nixon lost the election and the top three had to brief Kennedy on the invasion plans. After researching my father's phone book and coming across several names like, Jose Pujol, Luis and Tony Calatayud. I decided to look them up and give them a call. Upon arriving in Miami I called Pujol to let him know I was in town, he invited me over to his house. I also called Martinez from Nino Diaz's house and explained to him who I was, after talking to him for awhile on the phone he invited me over to his house. I showed him the document of my father having the photo's of Sturgis, Hunt, Gordon Liddy and other's, I wanted to know who the other's were? He said, that the other's were Barnard Barker and David Morales. I asked him why would the FBI or the CIA only list the names of Hunt, Sturgis and Liddy in that document and not the other's? And, how did my father get a hold of these photographs? Martinez explained, he said, your father stole them, he said, "how else do you think your father got a hold of them?" he also mentioned that no one knew about my father being the sixth man in Watergate, But, what I wanted to know, was how did all this tie into Kennedy's assassination? I knew my father wasn't apart of killing the president, so I asked point blank, what did Watergate have to do if anything with Kennedy's assassination? He replied, "Those were the photo's we were all looking for." Scott Kaiser

Exactly Robert! You don't have to call yourself an "historian" in order to make yourself or others believe you're right, all you need to do is go down to Miami and talk to all the survivors of the Bay of Pigs without imposing your own theory, then you'll get it. Secondly, I always wondered why Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, "well, if anyone is going to shoot me its going to happen now". The End! There is an enormous difference between the CIA having set up JFK to take a fall and the anti-Castro Cubans having resented him when it failed. Okay! For some reason there are a few people that BELEIVE that the CIA set up JFK to take the fall! Let me just say that is not true. <period> Kennedy at any time could have called it off, at anytime he could have not endorsed the invasion, at anytime could have broken it up just as he did with the anti-Castro groups, but he didn't! He allowed the invasion to play through while at the last minute calling off the airstrikes. Osvaldo Coello was the first person who received word on the radio on the ship Barbara that Kennedy called off the airstrikes. THEY WERE STRANDED!!! You don't say your going to do something then not do it! You don't play with people lives! You either fight or you don't, but you better have a damn good reason not to fight when you're telling the Cuban people they can't fight for their freedom. Tell me Mr. Fitzer, have you ever gone down to Miami and talked to any one Cuban who gave their life for freedom? Consider yourself lucky living where you live, in a free country, but consider yourself having to leave your country, your job, your family, your freedom. How the hell would you feel? You read documents, books, and come up with your own understanding and theory, you call yourself an historian, THEN GET IT RIGHT! I'm not downing Kennedy and lifting up the Cubans. I have listen to both sides of the story, why would I myself go against my own American President as an American? On the contrary, I should be proud of Kennedy and where I live. But do you think that Kennedy was this perfect man that could not make any mistakes? He did, while Kennedy was in his office sitting at his desk instead of writing decisions, decisions, decisions all over his writing tablet he should have just made a DECISION! Oh that's right he did! He called off the airstrikes. So who set up who? The agency passed the buck to Jack and transferred animus that should have been theirs to the young president. The agency passed nothing to NO ONE, it was created during the Eisenhower administration and Nixon helped found Operation 40. Instigated by Nixon who wanted to see this get kicked off sooner then passing the buck <so to say> to Kennedy, however, the CIA as much as they wanted to they couldn't get the invasion to land in Cuba due to preparations. But! What if they would have and the same circumstances happen? Would you have said that the CIA also set up Eisenhower? Properly not! Why? Because the outcome would have been different, Eisenhower and Nixon would have used American military. Castro would have been gone, they knew in order to oust Castro American military would have HAD to been used, there would have been NO other way. The CIA and Kennedy both knew that, that small brigade of 1,500 was no match for Castro's 10,000 men, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, but Kennedy reigned on his word. Your loyalty to Robert Morrow is admirable, but your reasoning ability with logic and evidence are not. Even he, I think, would instead agree with me. My loyalty is freely given to whom ever I choose Mr. Fetzer, if this is all about getting people to agree with you or me then I don't want any part of it. You're a big boy Mr. Fetzer, you should be able to make up your own mind. If you want to turn this into some sort of popularity contest go ahead, be my guess, but I think you have another 30 years of reading my friend.