Today’s date is 4 June, 2025. The following was originally published 4 June, 2018.

50 years ago, the 4th of June fell on a Tuesday.

In consecutive shifts my mother and then my father divided the day by driving small groups of voters from nursing homes to the polls where Robert F. Kennedy’s fight to win the California democratic primary was being waged.

During my mother’s shift, squeezing as many as 5 elderly but determined Kennedy supporters at a time into our Dodge station wagon, my father took me into the Ambassador Hotel’s Embassy Ballroom where I hoped I would see Senator Kennedy, but instead, experienced only the incredibly blinding heat and glare of television lights. I had met Senator Kennedy two years earlier in New Albany, Indiana. I know I was excited at the prospect of meeting him again. He was alive when I fell asleep in a room upstairs before the results of the election were known.

He was still alive, but mortally wounded, when I awoke early the next morning and found, to my surprise, my father was awake and in front of the television, sitting with his hands clasped in his lap, leaning forward, watching the screen. I had never known my dad, a full-time professional musician, to be awake before late, late morning or noon. He hadn’t slept. Only I. Nobody else had slept. I may have asked what was going on. What I remember my father saying was this:

“Somebody should take the guy who did this and machine gun him against a wall.”

That’s how I learned what had happened. Senator Kennedy lived 25 and a half hours after being shot. He died at 1:44 am, 6 June, 1968. He was 42 years old.

Be glad you weren’t there.

ADDENDUM

Portrait by Jim Bama from a photograph by D. Gorton.

6 June, 2020

There are times when experience disrupts and displaces whatever “normal” might have been. Today we are living through a daily assault on the continuities upon which we have always relied; continuities that unite rather than divide and explain rather than bewilder; continuities that help us to define where and who “we” are, so that participation, without fear, is possible.

Fifty-two years ago, my personal life and the continuities that I, as an eight-year-old, associated with “normal” were disrupted, irrevocably.

Many of my Facebook friends will be aware of something I wrote on this anniversary date two years ago regarding what I remember about 4 June, 1968.

For most of my life I was unwilling and unable to discuss, analyze, or even admit that I had been there, at the Ambassador Hotel, with my parents on that devastating occasion. Although I was asleep at the time of the shooting, my parents were not. A few years ago, because of something that had been artfully crafted by my friend, Phil Dragoo, which pertained to the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy for posting on a now defunct JFK forum, I publicly admitted what I had never told anyone: “I was there.”

That single admission was the first in a series of necessary steps for me to examine, deeply and honestly, the meaning and consequences of Senator Kennedy’s murder in relation to myself and my family. The short version is this: His death ended my childhood and destroyed the continuity of everything I had known and taken for granted while traveling across this country with my mother and father. It also set the course of my intellectual and emotional paths, alternatives to which I will never be able to consider.

It was not until that first acknowledgement, inspired and made possible by my friend’s creative posting on profound loss for which 1963 and 1968 are indelibly linked, I began to see that my parent’s lives were altered; their alcoholism was a direct result of disheartened grief; and I was traumatized my entire life by the effects of being in relatively close proximity to such an immense tragedy.

Until the period of the last five weeks of my father’s life, neither of my parents ever discussed the assassination with me. I understand now that they were not neglectful towards me about such a life changing experience; I see now and have come to accept that they could not have helped me, their only child, because they truly didn’t know how to help themselves. They had no solutions; they simply drank.

I will say this, sincerely: I did not realize how damaged I was until a small number of cherished friends and mentors involved themselves, meaningfully, to influence the necessity of dealing with this issue by talking about it.

Among those beautiful friends and teachers who have helped me, I include Malcolm Blunt, Dr. John Newman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Professor Peter Dale Scott, Bill Simpich, Dan Hardway, Jefferson Morley, Heather Tarver Fear, Stu Wexler, Larry Hancock, Charles Drago, Pat Speer, Debra Conway, Sherry Fiester, Jay Harvey, Bart Kamp, Greg R. Parker, Jay Miles, Dr. Josiah Thompson, Dan Alcorn, Jim Lesar, and one other without whom I would be elsewhere in this process and this post would not be possible, my dearest friend, Darlene. This is what she said to me:

“I was thinking about our last conversation, and your feeling as a small child that you could have done something to save RFK– I am sure this is not news to you, but I keep thinking that you have, of course, spent a good part of your adult life saving him, or at least his legacy. Not many people can say that they have turned tragic events of their childhoods into something positive.”

It is she whose clarity and insight has been directly impactful, speaking from her heart in such a way as to expand my emotional awareness, which has allowed me to see, objectively, that it was possible for a young child to be exposed to tragedy, to the violent deaths of his heroes and, despite internalizing the trauma, to have chosen a path of positive engagement, deep commitment to principle, and appreciation of the constructive benefits of doing more with your suffering than just grieve. I am privileged and forever thankful to those who allow me to participate in a cause which I find meaningful and gratifying.

So, 52 years ago the 4th of June fell on a Tuesday. Sitting with my father during the final days of his life in late January of 2015, I decided that I should ask him about that night. His first sentence was the end of the conversation. He said, “I heard the shots coming from the kitchen pantry.”

Be glad you weren’t there.

© 2025 AARC. All rights reserved.

 *****

******

JFK CONVERSATIONS with ALAN DALE

*****

REVIEWS and PRAISE

Version 1.0.0

AMAZON Product description and Customer Review written by Alan Dale:

***** 5 Stars

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 5, 2017

Version 1.0.0

The publication of JFK and Vietnam in 1992 did more than create controversy and ignite a media firestorm. Its basic thesis that President Kennedy was opposed to sending U.S. combat forces to Vietnam and would have averted the terrible war and its consequences was denounced by some and applauded by others. The book was given sufficient thoughtful attention by a few which would change the nature and scope of the argument over what would he have done if he had lived. While being attacked (and defended) during the initial period following publication, it was singled-out and praised by former DCI William Colby and former special assistant to President Kennedy, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., adding credibility to the idea that up until that time the story had never been presented with such detail, authority, or documentation. In 1992, JFK and Vietnam received high praise from Publisher’s Weekly and Kirkus Reviews. It was featured and recommended on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. The book garnered nation-wide attention. For a time.

That time was cut short by the demonstrable suppression of the book by its publisher, Warner Books. After first surviving a very serious threat of intervention to block publication by a federal agency, within five months JFK and Vietnam was pulled from the shelves, found to be unavailable for purchase anywhere, and left its author unable to communicate with the publisher’s representatives. They stopped returning his calls. Not since the Pentagon Papers had there been such an attempt to deny the American public access to a book about Vietnam. Without a serendipitous encounter between the author and a distinguished member of a distinguished American family, the story of the book itself might well have ended as abruptly as it began. It is our very good fortune that the story did not end there: the publisher returned the legal rights of the book to its author, and 25 years later we have JFK and Vietnam, second edition.

JFK and Vietnam, second edition, should be publicized and promoted so that every student, every teacher, every citizen who volunteers for military service, and every aspiring politician will know the many false calculations, mistakes, manipulations, deceptions and intrigue which led to the Vietnam War. This essential work examines in detail the Shakespearean machinations of deception and counter-deception that took shape in the hidden maneuverings of a president who was determined to avoid being trapped and determined to never again repeat the mistakes of the Bay of Pigs. Dr. Newman documents President Kennedy’s navigation of a dangerous course through Cold War hot spots and a very divided administration. What eventually emerges is an astonishingly dishonorable deception: a deliberate attempt to manipulate the President of the United States to authorize a war policy to which he was fundamentally opposed.

This is more than JFK and Vietnam. It is JFK and Laos; JFK and the Pentagon; JFK and the CIA; JFK and the National Security establishment as it evolved during the years preceding his election. The president recognized and responded to a clever adversary during the two years, ten months and two days of his administration, which acted—within 48 hours of his violent death in Dallas—to reverse his policy on Vietnam and throw America headlong into the tragic war that ensued.

Five stars. Highest recommendation.

***** 

UNCOVERING POPOV’S MOLE: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY VOLUME IV Paperback – October 18, 2022

by John M. Newman(Author)

 

AMAZON Product description and Customer Review written by Alan Dale:

The publication of Uncovering Popov’s Mole represents an unprecedented examination of the decades-long search, within the CIA, for a mole working for the KGB. Unlike a British mole working for the KGB in MI-6 (UK intelligence), who publicly fled to Moscow to avoid capture, the mole in the CIA was never exposed or identified up to the present day. This volume presents an entirely new hypothesis on the authority and objectives of the mole–working within the CIA’s Office of Security–and reveals a dramatic new context in relation to understanding Lee Harvey Oswald’s 1959 defection to the USSR.

The molehunt wrought catastrophic consequences to the Agency for more than two decades. When viewed as a calculated misdirection, being run by the mole himself, what does that mean in relation to the utilization of Oswald as bait? There are staggering ramifications, the scope and depth of which may take years to come to light.

However, Newman’s work makes clear how the mole in the Security Office defected attention from himself by convincing the chief of CIA counterintelligence, James Angleton, that Oswald could be used as bait to find the mole working in CIA’s Soviet Russia Division. Furthermore, Uncovering Popov’s Mole shows how Angleton unknowingly provided all of the Agency’s sensitive secrets to the mole in the Office of Security–as he had previously to Kim Philby.

Uncovering Popov’s Mole is the fourth volume in Dr. Newman’s series on the life, public service, and assassination of President Kennedy: Volume I, Where Angels Tread Lightly; Volume II, Countdown to Darkness; Volume III Into the Storm; and Volume IV, Uncovering Popov’s Mole. Soon to be published: Volume V, Armageddon.

These projects reexamine sacred orthodoxies, introduce vital new facts, and challenge many commonly accepted assumptions and interpretations. Dr. Newman’s ongoing work demystifies our hidden history and illuminates the darkest passages of America in the Cold War.

New doors are about to open. Newman’s works are history in the making.

 *   *   *

Oswald’s story didn’t start on 22 November 1963 | Alan Dale

Every development in the history of deep JFK assassination research corresponds to a moment in time. As a work-in-progress, we are today building upon 59 years of records acquisition, data collection and analysis. It is what fuels our advancement and compels us to question our certainties and revise our beliefs; and it is in this context (more than 18 months ago), while overlaying a particular subset of travel records on top of event chronologies that this volume revealed itself.

Those who are deeply interested in the JFK story will have become accustomed to sifting through detritus. On the subject of alleged commie, alleged lone nut, alleged presidential assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, in no other area of which I’m aware are we quite so inundated with major claims made by minor figures. In contrast to what some have declared about poor hapless misfit, Lee Oswald, being of no interest or value to either the KGB or CIA, we no longer have to speculate about some aspects of that debate. Uncovering Popov’s Mole is the first work of which I’m aware to report and identify the trusted Minsk KGB defector, IJDECANTER, who gave unprecedented privileged information to both the FBI (Flash Run) and the Agency about Marina and Lee Oswald’s time together in the Soviet Union.

Discussion of Oswald’s defection, his alleged familiarity with sensitive U-2 information, his proximity to the U-2 while stationed at Atsugi and, in particular, the probability that his role as defector was being managed as bait in a super-secret but authorized operation, must include some consideration of the following questions: What explanation can there be for action being undertaken within CIA, prior to Oswald’s defection, which changed the standard process of dissemination so that none of the relevant paperwork generated by that event went where it should have gone, to the various desks of the Soviet Russia Division? Why, instead, were those documents diverted to the Office of Security? If this action was not initiated by Counterintelligence chief, James Angleton, to whom so many have concluded, perhaps prematurely, that all mysterious roads must lead, then who else had the authority to conceive and conduct this operation? And, finally, not merely who, but why? Why was this action undertaken? The answers being offered in this book may surprise.

To answer those questions, Dr. Newman leads us down a very deep dive into the mid-1950s through 1975, with moles and mole hunts, defectors and liars, traitors and scoundrels and fools all along the way. There’s also quite a bit that will inform our reluctant but appropriate admission: there were giants and Grand Masters, on both sides, at work as adversaries on the Cold War chess board, Ivan Agayantz, Pete Bagley, and Sergei Kondrachev most notably among them.

Uncovering Popov’s Mole is not an only child. For several decades, Professor Peter Dale Scott and a devoted group of JFK assassination researchers have focused on what was visible in the bright mid-day sun being reflected off the chrome of President Kennedy’s limousine in Dealey Plaza, and also upon what has been hidden, deliberately, inside the instantly enveloping darkness of very real and very deep Cold War history.

The focus of Dr. Newman’s body of work represents a major commitment to review the available documentary record, and to identify as many as is possible of the primary and secondary Cold War players on both sides. The case being made within these pages is that, as of 31 October 1959, Lee Oswald was an essential part of a false mole hunt that was specially crafted by the mole himself to mislead the Counterintelligence (CI) staff, deflect attention away from himself, and focus instead upon the Soviet Russia Division. This was done under the cover of appearing to be a legitimate mole hunt, necessarily initiated in response to Pyotr Popov’s 1958 warning that the Soviet authorities had acquired complete technical details of the U-2 spy plane.

It’s a helluva ride. Five stars. Highest recommendation.

15 December, 2020

The Ochelli Effect 12-15-2020 Alan Dale

Devil Details Dialogues Alan Dale

This podcast contains a unique discussion between the esteemed Chuck Ochelli and Alan Dale. Alan is well known for participating in JFK conferences and his collaboration with many authors in the field. The conversation focused on his first book.

Who is Malcolm Blunt? Who else participated in the creation of Alan’s book? What is Alan Dale’s personal motivation for investigating the circumstances and history related to the murder of the 35th President?

The Devil is in the Details: Alan Dale with Malcolm Blunt on the Assassination of President Kennedy

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

 *   *   *

James Madison University, 2 NOV , ’17

Dr. John M. Newman responds to questions about a November 2, 1994 interview involving himself, Jefferson Morley and a former CIA Liaison officer named Jane Roman who acknowledged that irregularities regarding pre-assassination handling of Oswald related inquiries suggests that some elements within the Agency regarded Oswald as a figure of operational interest 6 weeks prior to President Kennedy’s assassination.

Transcription:

Alan Dale (off camera): Dr. Newman, there was a key moment in your interview, in the company of Washington Post reporter, Jefferson Morley, November 3rd (probably the 2nd), 1994, you were sitting in the home of Jane Roman who thirty-one years earlier had signed off on information which she knew was false and misleading in response to a routine inquiry from the Mexico City (CIA) station about, ‘What do we have on this guy Oswald?’ It was the first week of October of 1963; it was six-weeks prior to the assassination; Jane Roman is a liaison desk-officer who doesn’t make protocol and is not deciding to do something on her own, but she is a reliable professional in a very, very important position. Thirty-one years later, you took her chronologically from the middle of 1962 until literally a few days prior to that request from the Mexico City station, and you showed her all of the documentation with her signature on it, indicating that she was apprised, she was aware, of things that certain other people inside the CIA were not aware of. Would you mind telling us, what she said, first, when you asked her, what’s your take on this?, and second, after you asked her, does this indicate to you an operational interest in Oswald six-weeks prior to the assassination?

Dr. Newman: Well, like you said, I showed her the documents first, and then I showed her the routing slips with her initials on them, and then I asked her about what that meant. After she saw the last document, the corners of her mouth curled up to the corners of her ears, and she got it. So, I already had her on record; we had two tape recorders going that day, mine and Jeff’s. And so, she said to me, “I’m signing off on something that’s not true.” And that was a breakthrough right there. And I said, well, why were you signing off on something that was not true? She said, “Look, I wasn’t involved, really. I wasn’t involved in the hanky-panky. It’s indicative of a keen operational interest in Lee Harvey Oswald.” And that’s not supposed to happen either, right? They’re not supposed to be interested at all, in the SAS, the Cuban Affairs staff. So, that was one of those breakthrough moments. It was not that long after the JFK Records Act, and, again, there was this feeling like, okay, so we can talk now, right? So there was no reason why not to just be engaged and she did and I put her in that position by asking her the right sequence and she blurted out …

Alan Dale: So, if I may, what she said in response to your direct question, which was recorded and transcribed by the Washington Post transcription service, you said, if I recall correctly, and it’s possible I don’t, but I believe you said, “I guess what I’m asking you to address head-on here is, does this indicate to you an operational interest in Oswald?” (Six weeks prior to the assassination.) And her response, without missing a beat was, “Yes. To me it indicates a keen interest held very closely on the need-to-know basis.”

Dr. Newman: “… on the need-to-know basis.” Mm-hm.

Alan Dale: Tell me, tell us what happened when you and Jeff walked out of that house.

Dr. Newman: Well, we just wondered what had taken place there. The chain got moved down the football field a little bit that day, like with Malcolm Blunt and Pete Bagley.”

[End of transcript]

 *   *   *