President Kennedy speaking in Fort Worth the morning of Nov. 22, 1963
Posted on 09/24/2003 12:04:04 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Just two days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, a suspected killer and known foreign terrorist was captured in Dallas, Texas.
The U.S. government was aware the man had received rigorous training in a foreign military and was a member of a covert paramilitary organization that already had murdered dozens, if not hundreds of people, including military officers, high ranking police officials and democratically elected politicians.
President Kennedy speaking in Fort Worth the morning of Nov. 22, 1963 |
Amazingly, according to the authors of an explosive new book promising to unravel the 40-year mystery of who killed JFK, there is no evidence to show he ever even was questioned about his presence in Dallas so soon after Kennedy's murder.
Instead, say co-authors Brad O'Leary and L.E. Seymour in the upcoming WND Books release "Triangle of Death," the man was picked up and quickly and quietly flown out of the United States under a cloak of secrecy.
Although the book has not yet been released to bookstores, it has already shot up to 218 on the Amazon chart just from initial pre-sales.
The story of the mysterious assassin is revealed in a CIA document backing the author's compelling argument that President Kennedy was killed Nov. 22, 1963, as the result of a massive conspiracy between the CIA-installed government of South Vietnam, the French global heroin syndicate and the New Orleans Mafia.
"This deportation, in fact, and the sinister man in question, have been the subject of repeated U.S. Justice Department investigations for more than three decades," the authors write, "investigations that have been deliberately withheld from the American public and the world."
The suspicious expulsion also never was reported to the Warren Commission, the official investigative body appointed by President Lyndon Johnson.
"This revelation can only be described as colossal in the realm of assassination research, and one would accordingly expect the league of Kennedy researchers to jump all over it, examine it to every degree, and then include its startling importance in the overall field of their work," O'Leary and Seymour write. "But that never happened."
The CIA document reveals the man was a French assassin – wanted by France for subversion – who was in Fort Worth on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963, and in Dallas in the afternoon.
On that morning, President Kennedy was in Forth Worth, giving a speech in front of the Hotel Texas. In the afternoon, in Dallas, he was shot to death.
Noting all U.S. deportations were executed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the authors ask: "Why would an authority of the United States Justice Department deport a known terrorist?"
One would believe, they write, that he would have been "apprehended and imprisoned, or at least sent back to France where the legal authorities there had already clearly deemed him an enemy of the state."
"But there's no evidence to suggest [he] was ever even questioned about his presence in Dallas so soon after Kennedy's murder."
The French, who believe he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada, identified him as a member of the right-wing extremist group, the OAS, Organisation de l'Armée Secrète, comprised of deserters from the French Army in opposition to President Charles de Gaulle's granting of independence to Algeria. The members of the "Secret Army" were involved in countless acts of terrorism and assassination.
"Triangle of Death" answers questions surrounding this previously dismissed episode and pieces it together with recently declassified federal documents, material supplied by the KGB, information from the Bonano crime family, documents obtained from a French court and the only interview done with a French witness previously only debriefed by the FBI and CIA.
As WorldNetDaily reported, newly released tapes of Johnson's telephone conversations also corroborate the central premise the book, showing the Kennedy White House did not merely tolerate or encourage the murder of its ally, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, but organized and executed it, writes Fox News White House correspondent James Rosen in the Weekly Standard.
Coup d'état
"Triangle of Death" – which includes details of a first-time-ever crime scene re-creation at Dealey Plaza – shows how Kennedy planned and developed the coup d'état that resulted in the political murders of the Catholic president, Diem, and his two brothers just 22 days before his death. The U.S. State Department suppressed this information for more than 30 years.
 |
Evidence includes federal documents that only recently have been declassified or released – exclusively to the authors.
The authors reveal a Mafia chieftain, who employed Jack Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald's uncle, confessed to federal officers he had been directly involved in Kennedy's murder.
In addition, O'Leary and Seymour recount how the United States and the Soviet Union both went on high military alert immediately after Kennedy's death, bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation.
Other facts uncovered by the book include:
Two chapters of this book have already been used to make two different television specials – one on PBS and the other on the History Channel.
Co-author O'Leary, involved in politics for more than 25 years, publishes the O'Leary Report, one of the most influential publications in American politics. His clients have included more than 60 political and public figures, including Sen. John Tower and Texas Gov. John Connolly, who rode in Kennedy's car when he was shot. O'Leary also hosted his own radio show on NBC for seven years and was a contributing columnist for USA Today Weekend magazine. He currently is president of Associated Television News in Los Angeles.
O'Leary is available for media interviews through Shirley and Banister and Associates at (703) 739-5920.
His co-author, Seymour, is a free-lance writer and author of 15 novels, including "The Stickmen" and "Operator 'B'."
False claims?
O'Leary and Seymour note investigative bodies of the U.S. government have made numerous claims, including that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin; that only two shots hit their target, that the bullets fired that day all came from the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository; and that Kennedy was killed because he was preparing to pull all U.S. troops out of Vietnam.
 |
The authors insist all of these claims are false and are designed to placate the American public and distract them from the facts of the case.
They acknowledge most readers will find it difficult to accept that Kennedy authorized the overthrow of the Catholic government of South Vietnam and the assassination of Diem, South Vietnam's democratically elected, constitutional president.
After all, Kennedy had generously pledged American troops, military equipment and tax dollars to protect South Vietnam from the threat of communism.
But the authors of "Triangle of Death" provide evidence Kennedy personally asked a high-ranking U.S. military officer to assassinate Diem, who was a political disaster-in-the-making for the president.
The events were set into motion when a Buddhist leader named Quang Duc calmly sat down in a Saigon street June 11, 1963, soaked himself with gasoline, lit a match and burned himself to death.
The news swept through the world, and when the full extent of Diem's brutality toward the Buddhists became apparent, America immediately began to ask itself the obvious questions, O'Leary and Seymour write: "Why is the U.S. supporting a foreign government that engages in religious persecution? Why is President Kennedy sending U.S. military personnel to help the government of a man who puts his own people into concentration camps?"
The authors point out: "Until then, America believed the increasing number of U.S. men and women being sent to South Vietnam – close to 15,000 by June 1963 – and the $1.2-million-per-day aid package were to help the South Vietnamese fight the deadly Vietcong. But literally overnight, the U.S. was internationally perceived as a bunch of buffoons who were propping up a tyrant."
 South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated Nov. 1, 1963 |
With the next U.S. presidential election just over a year away, they write, "Kennedy was infuriated; moreover, he and his political consultants were scared."
People "already believed that Kennedy had stolen the election, based on suspicious vote-counting in Illinois; a Catholic U.S. president supporting a Catholic fanatic who was intent on persecuting another religious group would provide them with all the ammunition they needed in November of '64."
The authors contend they have irrefutable evidence the Kennedy White House supported a coup d'etat against the government of South Vietnam and the assassination of President Diem.
"More than anything else," they write, "this was the rich ground in which a counter-conspiracy was planted, the conspiracy that led to President Kennedy's own assassination."
Indeed.
The major problem with a conspiracy is the difficulty of keeping it a secret. Especially now, when the man who discloses the facts will become rich and famous.
I am not one to believe the CIA men of 1961-63 (CIA being shorthand for all the shadow warriors from agencies known and unknown) were Nazis, or traitors. Most of them were patriots, and courageous ones at that.
What if someone made up a story (or what if it was really true) that JFK was compromised by his sex life, or his drug taking, or who knows what, and that the failures in Cuba, and SVN, and Laos, and Tibet were the result.
What if that someone were DCI, or the FBI Director?
Do you think there would have been an impeachment, and a Senate trial? I don't.
Do you think, given the choice between a live traitor and a dead hero, that his brother would have aggresively pursued the truth? I don't.
This crime will never be solved.
Kennedy's brain - a crucial piece of forensic evidence - was stolen by a U.S. Navy admiral, on Robert Kennedy's orders.
This is not new. I remember going to a lecture (around 1987) at my college by a guy who focused on the medical and autopsy aspects of the JFK assassination. I don't remember much about the talk other than "people" who didn't want the truth to be known altered things and didn't let a full examination of JFK's body take place, and this involved doing something with or to his brain. I don't remember if this guy implicated RFK, though. Maybe that's the new part.
I was once a conspiracy believer, but after digesting everything I could find on the subject, and after witnessing how OJ's "dream team" made every police screw up look like the conspiracy of the century, I realized that there is absolutely no evidence of anything other than Oswald firing from the sixth floor book depository window.
I have seen the vultures circling delay Plaza in Dallas selling their conspiracy rags. There's no market in selling the truth, so there needs to be a "new killer" all the time. Please don't give these ghouls your money!
That was my problem for years in making sense of the various conspiracy theories surrounding the murder. The details of what happened and how were always pretty clear and pretty undeniable. The mystery that left it all hard to swallow was the "why". The theories always presume some kind of evil cabal who wanted to destroy Camelot, and none of it ever really made any sense.
The light came on for me a few years ago, ironically after reading an aricle in George magazine. Ironic, because they published the story of the Tibetan freedom fighters, and what happened to them. It was disgusting.
I had read bits and pieces for years about them, and about the embittered CIA men whose handiwork had gone for nothing, but had never read the details until that article. The details have since been written elsewhere as well.
The army was killed to the last man, of course, with phone calls to the White House going unanswered.
About the same time I read of the wife of a CIA man who was a Kennedy mistress, who was murdered while jogging, not that that's a big issue...
Anyway, after reading the George article, a light went on in my head. I thought also about the very bitter CIA officers whose men were betrayed and killed at the Bay of Pigs, and it just hit me. What would you do? The evil cabal defending the Federal Reserve System never made sense, the evil cabal wanting to make big bucks in Viet Nam never made sense, but a coup to remove a rogue president makes perfect sense to me. This was the height of the Cold War, and it was very a deadly serious time. People weren't fooling around.
In any other country in the world, it is understood that if the president goes beyond the pale, at some point a panel of military officers will remove him. He can go quietly into exile, or he can go the hard way, but he goes.
There is no tradition of military defense of civilian institutions in our country, so exile is not an option. That leaves the hard way.
The thought you expressed that it would be hard to keep something like this secret, I have considered, and finally dismissed. The fact is that it isn't secret at all. All of the facts in the case are known. Everyone knows them. And everyone knows that if they draw the logical conclusions based on what they know, we all agree to consider them a kook. So everyone knows, but knows in silence. The case is unsolvable because we have in effect agreed that it is unsolvable. There is an interesting study in mass psychology there for anyone who wants to dig into it.
Something similar occurred when Clinton was caught taking money from Chinese intelligence. Everyone knows, everyone has agreed not to know. [The events surrounding the JFK episode were sufficiently traumatizing that no one in the security services was going to move against Clinton, or perhaps he had enough allies there to protect him from forceable removal.]
There was, of course, a long list of people who died in the few months after JFK's death, and the people who were directly complicit took their story to the grave. But it really isn't a secret what happened, just the who and why. They have, as you said, been content to let him be lionized by his biographers. It is this lionization that makes the crime inexplicable. If he was who his biographers said he was, why would anyone take him from us? But he wasn't, and the decision to remove him was probably shared out among several, including Johnson and Earl Warren. Hoover. And the "shadow warrior" chiefs.
I always figured it was Joe DiMaggio. ;~))
The 40th anniversary of the Dallas Event is bound to bring new interest, and new revelations.
For one thing, the spread of technology was not counted upon.
The Voice Stress Analyser was not in private hands...Oswald apparantly gave truthful answers to press questions when he said he was a "patsy."
Also, computers were still in air conditioned rooms...the rudimentary PC's were almost 20 years away. Dotto Photoshop and Forensic Software. What does that have to do with anything???
Try a scan of the "official" autopsy Photographs...and shade the "mortician's wax" additions...Kennedy's face is made up of most of it.
Look, I'm not an assination buff...just someone who watches the History Channel. Every few years they run "The Men who Killed Kennedy", and each time they seem to add another volume of evidence.
And, of course, The New York Slimes as always ignores it, or goes ballistic, as when "X-Files" summarizes the informed opinion in a Dream Sequence between two characters in a Sci Fi episode.
Most murder victims are not killed because they are good.
And any reasonable homicide investigation begins with, "who wanted to kill him", which usually leads directly to the dark side of the victim.
I wrote this in 1994:
Most of the researchers theories of which I am aware about the motive for the crime can be summarized as: "JFK was killed because he was good" (insert your preferred goodness here: Getting us out of Vietnam, opposing the Federal Reserve, wanting peace with Cuba/USSR, prosecuting the Mafia, etc). Of course, there was obvious government participation in the immediate aftermath of the crime, and also probably in the crime itself, AND the participants have kept their secret for 34 years.
This requires that you believe that many actors had motive not just to do the crime, and not just to cover it up, but to sustain the coverup for a generation. Now, I find it implausible that so many people would be able to sustain such an incredible effort for so long UNLESS THEY BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING. The person who cracks this crime will be famous and also have material rewards. There is a major incentive to tell the truth now, and none to lie, unless there is an underground story or legend WHICH REMAINS PERSUASIVE TODAY about why the coverup should continue.
When a normal person is killed unexpectedly, the search for a motive begins not with the victim's good points, but with the passions and behaviors which might have brought another person to commit homicide. This search for a motive often reveals new and unanticipated facts about the victim. Such facts about JFK may be available now, or may appear in future books and papers.
It is my own view that JFK was caught in a vortex of his own making, of aggressive anti-Communism, secret operations involving extralegal and extraconstitutional use of force, and his personal life. These were his passions: (Pay any price, bear any burden, Green Berets, covert ops, compulsive sexual behavior, undermine the institutions by numerous back-channel connections to lower-echelon types not afraid to take chances, etc.) If you were, say, Hoover, and you wanted him dead, how easy it would have been to make up a story (and how much easier if the story were true) for Allen Dulles, or others, that JFK had been sexually compromised (or pick another vice of your choice) by a Russian agent, and that the secret deal not to invade Cuba was the result. An impeachment trial, so the story would go, would leave the country weak and defenseless at a time when almost everyone, not just a few nuts, thought the reds were scaling the walls (Cuba, Berlin, Laos, duck and cover in my fifth grade class, etc). In order to save the nation the agony of a treason trial in the Senate, why not let a few good men take care of the problem in a way which will leave a dead hero.
The virtue of this scenario is that it provides the remaining actors who are still alive just as much reason to keep quiet today as in 1963.
The INS was part of the DOJ.
Under it's new incarnation it's known as
the Bureau of Citizenship and immigration Services (BCIS)
and is now part of the new Dept of Homeland Security.
See: "Jack the Ripper". "Roswell". Amelia Earhart. Kidnapping of Lindburgh's child.
What I want to know about the Kennedys is how 1.) Ted Kennedy can still get elected, and 2.) How can his liver take the alleged abuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.