Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy

I uploaded Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy at Archive.org some time ago and thought I’d share it for those who haven’t seen it yet. Click on the photo.

 

Beyond JFK: The Question of Conspiracy is a spellbinding documentary examining the issues dramatized by the Academy Award-winning movie JFK.

Using newsreel and interview footage, this compelling piece to JFK presents many of the true-life people portrayed in the film by Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones, John Candy, Kevin Bacon and others and it does more. Eyewitnesses to the tragic events of November 22, 1963 reveal astonishing testimony. Supporters of the Warren Commission’s finding provide counterpoint throughout the program. And details of the world-shattering investigations by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison are set out with step-by-step clarity.

E. Howard Hunt in Dallas November 22, 1963

E. Howard Hunt was in Dallas the day of the assassination and the photo of him was verified by his son, Saint. John Hunt. When Jim Marrs showed him the photo, he responded, “That’s my dad. I recognize that trench coat. He loved it and wore it all the time.” Spooks, Lies and Dopplegangers

 

All Wars Are Bankers Wars



The Intra-Administration War in Vietnam

Arthur Krock

New York Times

October 3, 1963 p. 34

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2—The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press dispatches from Vietnam to American newspapers and in articles originating in Washington. Like the Supreme Court when under fire, the CIA cannot defend itself in public retorts to criticisms of its activities as they occur. But, unlike the Supreme Court, the CIA has no open record of its activities on which the public can base a judgment of the validity of the criticisms. Also, the agency is precluded from using the indirect defensive tactic which is constantly employed by all other Government units under fire.

This tactic is to give information to the press, under a seal of confidence, that challenges or refutes the critics. But the CIA cannot father such inspired articles, because to do so would requires some disclosure of its activities. And not only does the effectiveness of the agency depend on the secrecy of its operations. Every President since the CIA was created has protected this secrecy from claimants—Congress or the public through the press, for example—of the right to share any part of it.

With High Frequency

This Presidential policy has not, however, always restrained other executive units from going confidentially to the press with attacks on CIA operations in their common field of responsibility. And usually it has been possible to deduce these operational details from the nature of the attacks. But the peak of the practice is revealed almost every day now in dispatches from reporters—in close touch with intra-Administration critics of the CIA—with excellent reputations for reliability.

One reporter in this category is Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard newspapers. Today, under a Saigon dateline, he related that, “according to a high United States source here, twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge … [and] in one instance frustrated a plan of action Mr. Lodge brought from Washington because the agency disagreed with it.” Among the views attributed to United States officials on the scene, including one described as a “very high American official … who has spent much of his life n the service of democracy … are the following:

The CIA’s growth was “likened to a malignancy” which the “very high official was not sure even the White House could control … any longer.” If the United States ever experiences [an attempt at a coup to overthrow the Government] it will come from the CIA, and not the Pentagon.” The agency “represents a tremendous power and total unaccountability to anyone.”

Disorderly Government

Whatever else these passages disclose, they most certainly establish that representatives of other Executive branches have expanded their war against the CIA from the inner government councils to the American people via the press. And published simultaneously are details of the agency’s operations in Vietnam that can come only from the same critical official sources. This is disorderly government. And the longer the President tolerates it—the period already is considerable—the greater will grow its potentials of hampering the real war against the Vietcong and the impression of a very indecisive Administration in Washington.

The CIA may be guilty as charged. Since it cannot, or at any rate will not, openly defend its record in Vietnam, or defend it by the same confidential press “briefings” employed by its critics, the public is not in a position to judge. Nor is this department, which sought and failed to get even the outlines of this agency’s case in rebuttal. But Mr. Kennedy will have to make a judgment if the spectacle of war within the Executive branch is to be ended and the effective functioning of the CIA preserved. And when he makes this judgment, hopefully he also will make it public, as well as the appraisal of fault on which it is based.

Doubtless recommendations as to what his judgment should be were made to him today by Secretary of Defense McNamara and General Taylor on their return from their fact-finding expedition into the embattled official jungle in Saigon.

Original NYT article

 

CIA Instructions to Media Assets Regarding Critics of the Warren Commission

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

__________

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.

 

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [business] addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with [?] and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors), pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.) 

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. [Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.]

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

 

Kennedy Had a Plan for Early Exit in Vietnam

December 23, 1997

New York Times

Pentagon documents declassified today may rekindle the still-smoldering argument over whether President John F. Kennedy would have pulled American forces out of Vietnam.

The documents show that shortly before Kennedy was assassinated, the nation's top military leaders were going forward with his plan to withdraw American advisers from Vietnam.

''All planning will be directed towards preparing Republic of Vietnam forces for the withdrawal of all United States special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965,'' reads an Oct. 4, 1963, memorandum drafted by Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and discussed that day by the Chiefs.

''Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 United States military personnel by the end of 1963,'' the memorandum continues.

No one will ever know whether these plans would have been carried out had Kennedy lived. The United States had 16,300 advisers in South Vietnam at the time. By the end of 1968, it had more than 500,000 soldiers in the country.

Historians know that Kennedy directed the Pentagon to devise the withdrawal plans. But some believe they were a political facade erected for the 1964 elections; others think they were based on overly optimistic battlefield reports; still others see them as a device to force South Vietnam's corrupt Government to change.

And Kennedy's public pronouncements on withdrawal were utterly different from his private plans. In public, he was firmly opposed to withdrawal. ''I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw,'' he told the CBS News reporter Walter Cronkite on Sept. 2, 1963. ''That would be a deep mistake.''

The documents also show that the Joint Chiefs were unhappy with the idea. Gen. Paul D. Harkins of the Army warned that it ''would have a bad effect on the Vietnamese, to be pulling out just when it appears they are winning.''

In fact, the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating in the fall of 1963. But South Vietnam's President, Ngo Dinh Diem, was deceiving his American patrons about the progress of the war, and United States military and political leaders were deceiving themselves and one another about the conflict, many historians say.

Members of the Joint Chiefs believed that the United States should go to war against North Vietnam. But, as one newly declassified memorandum shows, the Chiefs knew that ''proposals for overt action invited a negative Presidential decision.'' Accordingly, they pressed for covert operations run by the Central Intelligence Agency, the documents show, and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara promised C.I.A. officers ''whatever is necessary to accelerate their efforts.''

Presidents Diem and Kennedy were both assassinated in November 1963. Within days after taking power, the documents show, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered ''intensified operations against North Vietnam'' both overt and covert, covering ''the full spectrum of sabotage, psychological and raiding activity.'' Mr. McNamara told the Chiefs there was ''an urgent need'' to put ''increasing pressure on North Vietnam.''

The 800 pages of Joint Chiefs records were made public today by the Assassination Records Review Board, which by law has the power to declassify secret Government records bearing on Kennedy's death.

JFK Assassination: Katzenbach Memorandum to Bill Moyers November 25, 1963

On November 25 1963, the day of the Kennedy funeral, Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach sent a memo to Bill Moyers of the new Johnson White House. He had begun writing it the day earlier, within hours after Oswald's death at the hands of Jack Ruby.

The second paragraph stated: "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial."

Given that the authorities could not possibly by November 25 know these things to be true, and Katzenbach later admitted he knew very little at this stage, the memo is clearly advocating a political course irrespective of the truth of the assassination.

The motivation for this political course may be glimpsed in the succeeding paragraph: "Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem about too pat--too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced."

Katzenbach's memo advocated a public FBI report to satisfy this "objective," though he noted the possible need for "the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions." He ended by advocating a quick public announcement to "head off speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

To many observers, the Katzenbach memo provides the blueprint for the cover-up which followed.

 

 

 

November 25, 1963

 

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

 

It is important that all the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to the effect be made now.

 

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have more basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the facts on Oswald seem too pat – too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumor and speculations. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.

I think the objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination. This may run into the difficulty of pointing to inconsistencies between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.

The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and disadvantages. I think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.

 

Nicholas Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

 

The Loss of John Judge Hits Hard

From David Swanson at WarIsACrime.org

 

I first heard of Judge on YouTube when he stated that his mother, who worked in the Pentagon in 1963, revealed that the JCS had already made plans to escalate the war in Vietnam BEFORE John Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. It has been proven beyond doubt that JFK was implementing a complete withdrawal of troops, advisers and CIA personnel from Indochina before the end of 1965. If the Pentagon already had plans to escalate, what does that tell you about the foreknowledge they had about the President’s death? And why did the Pentagon destroy their files on Lee Harvey Oswald? – Harry

*****

Our society has lost a great activist today with the death of John Judge.  No one spoke more clearly, strongly, and informedly on political power, militarism, and activism for positive change.  While John lived next door to Dennis Kucinich -- and with one of the best views and one of the best collections of political books and documents -- in Washington, D.C., it was as staff person for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney that he advanced numerous causes of peace and justice and accountability for the powerful on Capitol Hill. 

On impeaching Bush and Cheney he was there first.

 John's expertise reached back into history and across continents.  From the Kennedy assassination to conscientious objection to how-a-bill-becomes-a-law, he was a person to turn to for information and wisdom who was never anything but helpful, friendly, cheerful, and energetic. 

He could describe the hiring of Nazis in Operation Paperclip and the creation of the Cold War and then suggest that perhaps the Nazis actually won World War II. 

He could explain the creation of standing armies in such a manner that you knew without a doubt that either our society was insane or you were.  He could get you thinking and get you active.  And always with complete humility and good will.  He will be missed. See more Swanson’s site.

JFK Assassination: Castro Did NOT Kill Kennedy

Tim Fleming, author of Murder of an American Nazi

Calling Gus Russo an investigative reporter is like awarding the Oscar to porn star John Holmes. This guy would not know the facts if they accosted him, beat him senseless, kidnapped him and held him for ransom. It is utterly laughable that he blames the Castro brothers for orchestrating the plot to kill JFK.

I suppose Fidel convinced the covert operatives of Operation Mongoose to pull it off. (Mongoose was the CIA’s plot to kill Castro but, instead of gunning for The Beard, they were all photographed in Dallas on Nov. 21-22, 1963)

And the Castros made sure the body was high-jacked from Parkland Hospital before autopsy (mandated by Texas law) could be performed.

But first, of course, they had to arrange, through their emissaries, Michael Paine of Bell Helicopter and millionaire oilman and Texas School Book Depository owner D. H. Byrd, to get Oswald that job which overlooked the president’s route so that he could be framed for the shooting.

And it was clever how the Castros maneuvered Jack Ruby into position at just the right time to kill the patsy.

And certainly it was Castro’s agents who appointed the Warren Commission to cover up the whole thing.

And for the last 45 years (50 now), Fidel has somehow convinced the CIA to withhold evidence.

My god, the Castros were busy in 1963, and what power they have wielded since. Who says a Third World banana republic can’t orchestrate a massive plot that kills the leader of the free world and stifles all investigative arms of the most powerful nation in the world, sworn enemy of communist Cuba.

Legacy of Secrecy is almost as hilarious. Thom Hartmann and Lamar Waldron blame the mob for the whole thing.

If you want a cogent, serious read about the assassination, and a brave, logical exploration of the true motivation behind the killing, read James Douglass’ book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He was Killed and Why It Still Matters. The establishment will try to smear him as a “peace activist” (God knows there’s nothing worse than someone who works for peace), but he’s got it right. Unlike Russo, Douglass points the finger at the people who GENUINELY had means, motive and opportunity.
 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Impacted by the James Douglass Book, JFK and the Unspeakable

From JFK Facts

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., environmentalist activists and son of Robert F. Kennedy, made news when spoke in Dallas in January 2013 to say his father doubted that his father was killed by one man for now reason.

Now he’s gone a step further in a blurb for the paperback edition of James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable.

“In JFK and the Unspeakable, Jim Douglass has distilled the best available research into a very well-documented and convincing portrait of President Kennedy’s transformation turn to peace, at the cost of his life.

Personally it has made a very big impact on me. After reading it in Dallas, I was moved for the first time to visit Dealey Plaza. I urge all Americans to read this book and come to their own conclusions about why he died and why–after fifty years–it still matters.”

Michael C. Ruppert Dead at 63

Abby Martin from Breaking The Set pays an emotional tribute to someone she considered a friend after his appearance on her show and subsequent communications, as she says goodbye to Michael C. Ruppert who committed suicide on April 13, 2014. It is a heartfelt tribute describing his accomplishments, trials an tribulations and her final farewell to which she barely makes it through the entire trbute before breaking down into tears. 
 

JFK Assassination: Join a Constitutional Assembly in Washington, D.C., to Free the CIA/JFK Files on May 29, 2014

Op-Ed News

A peaceable assembly in petition for release of all Kennedy assassination-related records still withheld by the Central Intelligence Agency will begin on Thursday, May 29, at 12:30 p.m. on public terraces of the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, 2700 F St., NW, Washington D.C.

 

 

Initiated by Karl Golovin, a retired U.S. Customs special agent, "the right to peaceably assemble, and petition for redress of grievances may not be suppressed or prohibited, as 'under color of law' by, for example, imposing inherently unconstitutional permit and regulatory requirements," says Golovin.

"In the United States, the government isn't to make people create an organizational hierarchy, submit plans and ask permission before publicly assembling to require that the government immediately change and stop doing something evil. 

Of course, the nature of governing authority through most of human history has been to avoid or manage criticism, to maintain absolute control and discourage public gatherings large enough to establish undeniable awareness of a need for change.  But in America, the Constitution says that if we have a grievance, we have the right to show up," he said. "Those we've placed in governing responsibility should welcome this process of receiving feedback and requiring their accountability – and not mischaracterize it as 'protesting' or 'civil disobedience.'"

Golovin is hoping many will heed this call to peaceably assemble and prompt the President to require the CIA's immediate release of the records. "If as many people show up as have expressed outrage about the government's conduct in this matter over the 50 years since November 22, 1963, the government will promptly release the records.  Peaceably assembling, not just online blogging and submitting written or electronic petitions, is the means provided by the Constitution whereby the American people may actually begin regaining control of our constitutional republic," Golovin said.

"There is no legitimate reason for continued withholding of information about JFK's assassination," said Golovin. 

"In 1985, sworn testimony in a Miami federal trial – never publicized by mainstream media – implicated E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and other CIA personnel in the assassination.  Before dying in 2007, Hunt taped his own confession – thin on details of self-described 'benchwarmer' status in the plot – yet implicating the involvement of not just Sturgis, but other CIA figures, including William King Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and David Atlee Phillips.

 

 

"How can the CIA delay releasing operational or other records of those who have confessed or been so implicated in President Kennedy's murder?" asks Golovin. " 'National Security?' No, 'National Security' rather requires genuine unraveling of the lies that 'Oswald acted alone' and 'Ruby acted alone;' Even reining in the CIA to its original, intelligence-only mandate and terminating its operational duties, as recommended a month after JFK's murder by the man who signed into law establishment of the CIA, President Harry Truman." Golovin notes, "Trying to make the world a better place by just killing all the right people obviously hasn't worked so well.  The founders were wise to agree on the requirement in the U.S. Constitution that Congress, the peoples' collective representation – not just a president, or CIA – must  declare war prior to unleashing acts of war, like assassinations and destructive interference in the internal affairs of other countries.  We have moved far enough in the wrong direction since JFK's assassination; it's time to correct our direction."

Golovin said that in part due to the proliferation of social media, the people of the United States have become complacent and forgotten the power of simply showing up in large numbers. "The government can't treat assembly as civil disobedience. It is actually the height of civil obedience to peaceably show up and hold our government accountable," Golovin stated. "It would be highly uncivil of authorities to prevent or disrupt it."

Golovin remembers a quote by Kennedy, "One person can make a difference, and everyone should try."  He hopes hundreds, thousands, or more may heed that call.

There are no plans for speakers during the assembly. "This is not about people gathering to be entertained, and any making the effort to be here will no doubt already understand the issues at stake.  We have become far too comfortable with routinely gathering only online, or just to hear experts speak and then ourselves go home, buy more books and continue always studying, always preparing, yet perhaps never taking demonstrable action.  This assembly is about experiencing the importance and power of our collective presence, gathering in expectation that those in government will promptly initiate a meaningful response; release of the records," Golovin said.

Following the assembly, the group may disperse and peaceably reassemble elsewhere, perhaps at the White House or CIA Headquarters, "to emphasize the immediacy of our grievance," Golovin said. "In first assembling, we are creating a moment for spontaneity.  In that moment and those to follow, none should instigate or participate in disorderliness or violence - any persons doing so should be immediately shunned, as likely planted by others to discredit the assembly; this is a day for peaceably assembling, in petition for redress of specific grievances."

Golovin recently hosted on March 21st, during "Sunshine Week," showing of a film, "JFK: A President Betrayed," at the Goethe Institute in Washington D.C., followed by a video produced by Golovin and discussion of the potential for what he terms "Constitutional Activism" in the context of the JFK assassination records issue.

Concurrent with this press release, Golovin is placing on YouTube an updated version of the original video on this topic, which received about 1700 views after initial posting on January 4, 2014.  The current video may be viewed by going to the domain names www.HonorJFK.com or www.CrackTheNut.com, as are forwarded to the video, or on the link provided at the Facebook Event page for the May 29th assembly, as is easily reached via:  www.JFKvigil.com.

The video released by Golovin and related Facebook Event page issue a call to action:

 

"On JFK's birthday, peaceably and simultaneously assemble in communities across the U.S. and world, but especially on the public terraces of The Kennedy Center, Washington, D.C., petitioning by your presence for: 1) Immediate release, in full, of all still secret assassination-related records; 2) Reining in of the CIA to its original, intelligence-only mandate; 3) Establishing a specific date for annual, global recognition of John Kennedy's life by vigilance in ending the intimidation of government secrecy and the violence it perpetuates, shining the light of transparency in  governments everywhere."

 

Between this press release and May 29^th, Golovin anticipates publicly displaying a sign and distributing flyers calling for the May 29th assembly:

 

1. On April 21^st, 2014, at both the John F. Kennedy National Historical Site (JFK Birthplace) and JFK Presidential Library and Museum, Boston, MA;

2. On the morning of April 22, 2014, during the broadcast of "Good Morning America," from the Rockefeller Center, New York, NY.

3. Between April 22, 2014 and May 29th, on Pennsylvania Avenue, in front of the White House, and other appropriate venues in and around Washington, D.C.

 

On May 29^th, Golovin anticipates release of a still further updated video, addressing matters to include E. Howard Hunt's confession and President George H. W. Bush's association with the CIA before his appointment as the agency's director in 1976.  Of note, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover took pains to carefully document that on November 23, 1963, "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" received an assassination-related FBI briefing, the day after JFK's murder. 

Also on May 29^th, if all records related to JFK's assassination are not released on or before that date, Golovin anticipates calling for subsequent reassemblies on the public terraces of the Kennedy Center, on November 22, 2014, the 51st anniversary of JFK's murder, and thereafter as necessary, including on the date yet to be announced for filming of the 2014 Kennedy Center Honors.

For more information contact Karl Golovin at Twitter at @karlgolovin, Phone 305-531-8381,  email address removed; Website www.JFKvigil.com is currently under construction, but that domain address forwards directly to the Facebook Event page for the May 29th Constitutional Assembly in Washington. Copies of all posters/flyers are available for free download via http://www.JFKvigil.info..





Ruth Paine Has a Sense of Humor After All … Or She’s Just Bat-Shit Crazy

The Press Democrat

FOR TAX DAY, Ruth Paine will be standing out front of Santa Rosa's main Post Office to share with anyone interested why she withholds a good chunk of what the IRS says she owes.

Paine, you may recall, was quite a bit in the news last November because 50 years earlier she was a close friend to Marina Oswald. Soon after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Paine was horrified to realize that houseguest Lee Harvey Oswald had hidden his rifle in her garage.

Paine also is a Quaker and member of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. For years, she has channeled Henry David Thoreau and protested America's war and war-preparation spending by subtracting the military's portion of her federal income tax.

“It's not something I recommend to others,” she said, “but it helps me answer the call of my conscience.”

She and some other residents of the Friends House retirement community will be outside the Post Office from 11 a.m. to noon to talk taxes and war.

Lyndon Johnson/J. Edgar Hoover Phone Conversation November 29, 1963

Discussion on the Formation of the Warren Commission

November 29, 1963 1:40 p.m.

LBJ: Are you familiar with this proposed group that they’re trying to put together on this study of your report and other things … two from the House, two from the Senate, somebody from the Court, a couple of outsiders?

JEH: I haven’t heard of that. I’ve seen the reports on the Senate Investigating Committee that they’ve been talking about.

LBJ: Well, we think if we don’t have … I want to get by just with your file and your report.

JEH: I think it would very, very bad to have a rash of investigations on this thing.

LBJ: Well, the only way we can stop them is probably to appoint a high-level one to evaluate your report and put somebody that’s pretty good on it that I can select, out of the government, and tell the House and Senate not to go ahead with their investigations because they’ll get a lot of television going and I think it would be bad.

JEH: That’s right, it would be a three-ring circus.

LBJ: What do you think about Allen Dulles?

JEH: I think he would be a good man.

LBJ: What do you think about John McCloy?

JEH: I’m not as enthusiastic about McCloy. I knew him back in the Patterson … when Patterson was down here as Secretary He’s a good man but I’m not so certain as to the matter of the publicity that he might seek on it.

LBJ: What about General Nordstadt?

JEH: Good man.

LBJ: All right. I guess Boggs has started it in the House. I thought maybe I might try to get Boggs and Jerry Ford, in the House. Maybe try to get Dick Russell and maybe Cooper in the Senate.

JEH: Yes, I think so.

LBJ: I don’t know … you know any reason … me and you are just going to talk like brothers … any reason … I thought Russell could kind of look after the general situation … see that the states …

JEH: Russell would be an excellent man.

LBJ: And I thought Cooper might look after the liberal group from Kentucky so they wouldn’t think … He’s a pretty judicious fellow but he’s a pretty liberal fellow. I wouldn’t want Javits or some of those on it …

JEH: No, no, no. Javits plays the front page a lot.

LBJ: Cooper is kind of border-state; not the South and not the North.

JEH: That’s right.

LBJ: Do you know Ford from Michigan?

JEH: I know of him but I don’t know him. I saw him on TV for the first time the other night and he handled himself well on that.

LBJ: You know Boggs?

JEH: Oh, yes, I know Boggs.

LBJ: He’s kind of the author of the resolution that’s why … Now Walter tells me -- Walter Jenkins -- that you’ve designated Deke to work with us like you did on the Hill and I want to tell you I sure appreciate that. I didn’t ask for it cause I didn’t -- I know you know how to run your business better than anybody else -- I just want to tell you though that we consider him as high-class as you do and it is a mighty gracious thing to do and we’ll be mighty happy. We salute you for knowing how to pick good men.

JEH: Well, that’s mighty nice of you Mr. President, indeed. We hope to have this thing wrapped up today but could be we probably won’t get it until the first of the week. This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story is they have this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban Embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We’re not able to prove that fact but the information was that he was there in the 18^th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively that he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they’ve changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28^th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28^th. Now the Mexican authorities, Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban Embassy and will hold her for two or three more days and we’re going to confront her with the original informant. She saw the money pass, so he says, and we’re also going to put the lie detector test on him. Meantime, of course, Capitol is hollering its head off.

LBJ: Can you pay any attention to those lie detector tests?

JEH: I would not pay 100 percent attention to them. All that they are is a psychological asset in an investigation. I wouldn’t want to be a part to sending a man to the Chair on a lie detector. For instance, we’ve found many cases where we’ve used them-- in a bank where there’s been embezzlement -- and the person will confess before the lie detector test is finished. They’re more or less fearful of the fact that the lie detector test will show them guilty. Psychologically there is that advantage, of course, it is a misnomer to call it a “lie detector” because what it really is is the evaluation of the chart as is made by this machine and that evaluation is made by a human being and any human being is apt to make the wrong interpretation. So I would not myself go on that alone. If, on the other hand, if this Oswald had lived and had taken the lie detector test and it had shown definitely that he done these various things together with the evidence that we very definitely have, it would just have added that much more strength to it. There is no question but that he is the man. Now with the fingerprints and things we have. This fellow, Rubenstein, down there, he has offered to take the lie detector test but his lawyer has got to be of course, consulted first and I doubt whether the lawyer will allow it. He’s one of these criminal lawyers from the West Coast somewhat like a Everett Bennett Williams type and almost as much of a shyster.

LBJ: Have you got any relationship between the two yet?

JEH: Between Rubenstein? No, at the present time we have not. There was a story down there …

LBJ: That he was in his bar? Was he ever in his bar and stuff like that?

JEH: There was a story that this fellow had been in the nightclub, that is a strip-tease joint that he had, but that has not been able to be confirmed. Now, this fellow Rubenstein, is a very shady character; has a bad record; street brawler, fighter, and that sort of thing, and in the place in Dallas if a fellow came in there and couldn’t pay his bill completely, Rubenstein would beat the very devil out of him and throw him out of the place. He was that kind of fellow. He didn’t drink, didn’t smoke; boasted about that. He is what I would put in the category of one of those “ego-maniacs.”Likes to be in the limelight. He knew all the police, in that White-light district where the joints are and he also let them come in, see the show, get food, liquor and so forth. That’s how I think he got into the police headquarters. Because they accepted him as kind of a police character hanging around police headquarters and for that reason raised no question. Of course, he never made any moves, as the pictures show, even when they saw him approaching, this fellow, and got up right to him and pressed his pistol against Oswald’s stomach. Neither of the police officers on either side made any move to push him away or grab him. It wasn’t until after the gun was fired that they then moved. Now, of course, that is not the highest degree of efficiency. Secondly, the Chief of police admits that he moved him in the morning as a convenience and at the request of the motion-picture people who wanted to have daylight. He should have moved him at night, but he didn’t, and they’re derelicts in that phase. But so far as tying Rubenstein and Oswald together, we haven’t yet done so. There have been a number of stories come in. We’ve tied Oswald into the Civil Liberties Union in New York, membership into that and, of course, into this Cuba Fair Play Commission … Committee … which is pro-Castro and dominated by communism and financed, to some extent, by the Castro government.

LBJ: How many, how many shots were fired?

JEH: Three.

LBJ: Any of them fired at me?

JEH: No. All of them at the President, and we have them. Two of the shots fired at the President were splintered, but they had characteristics on them so that our ballistic experts were able to prove that they were fired by this gun. The third shot which hit the President, he was hit by the first and the third, second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and rolled out the President’s head. It tore a large part of the President’s head off, and, in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, on the way to the hospital, they apparently loosened that and it fell on to the stretch. And we recovered that. And we have that. And we have the gun also.

LBJ: Were they aiming at the President?

JEH: They were aiming directly at the President. There is no question about that. This telescopic lens which I’ve looked through, it brings a person as close to you as if they were sitting right beside you and we also have tested the fact that you could fire those three shots were fired within three seconds. There had been some story going around in the papers and so forth that there must have been more than one man, because no one man could fire those shots in the time that they were fired. We’ve just proved that by the actual test we’ve just made.

LBJ: How did it happen to hit Connally?

JEH: Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and I think in that turning, it was where he got hit.

LBJ: If he hadn’t turned he probably wouldn’t have got hit?

JEH: I think that is very likely.

LBJ: Would the President’ve got hit the second one?

JEH: No, the President wasn’t hit with the second one.

LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn’t been in his way?

JEH: O, yes, yes, the President would no doubt have been hit.

LBJ: He would have been hit three times.

JEH: He would have been hit three times. On the fifth floor of that building, where we found the gun, and the wrapping paper in which the gun was wrapped, had been wrapped, and upon which we found the full fingerprints of this man Oswald. On that floor, we found three empty shells that had been fired and one shell that had not been fired. In other words, there were four shells apparently and he had fired three, but didn’t fire the fourth one. He then threw the gun aside and came down. At the entrance of the building, he was stopped by police officers and some manager in the building told the police officers, ‘well, he’s alright. He works here, you needn’t hold him.’ They let him go. This is how he got out. And then he got on a bus, bus driver identified him and went out to his home and go hold of a jacket that he wanted for some purpose and came back downtown -- walking downtown -- and the police officer who was killed stopped him, not knowing who he was and not knowing whether he was THE man, but just on suspicion, and he fired, of course, and killed the police officer. Then he walked …

LBJ: You can prove that?

JEH: Oh, yes, oh, yes, we can prove that. Then he walked about another two blocks and went to the theatre and the woman at the theatre window selling tickets, she was so suspicious the way he was acting.  She said he was carrying a gun, he had a revolver at that time with which he had killed the police officer, he went into the theatre and she notified the police and the police and our man down there, went in there and located this particular man. They had quite a struggle with him. He fought like a regular lion and he had to be subdued, of course, and was then brought out and, of course, taken to police headquarters. But he apparently had come down the five flights of steps – stairway – from the fifth floor. So far as we’ve found out the elevator was not used, although he could have used it, but nobody remembers whether it was or whether it wasn’t.

LBJ: Well, your conclusion is that (a) he’s the one that did it (b) the man he was after was the President (c) he would have hit him three times except the Governor turned.

JEH: I think that is correct.

LBJ: (d) that there is no connection between he and Ruby that you can detect now (e) whether he was connected with the Cuban operation with money you’re trying to …

JEH: That’s what we’re trying to nail down now because he was strongly pro-Castro, he was strongly anti-American, and he had been in correspondence, which we have, with the Soviet Embassy here in Washington, and with the American Civil Liberties Union and with this Committee for Fair Play to Cuba. We have copies of the correspondence, so we’ve got him nailed down in his contact with them. None of those letters, however, tells of any indication of violence or contemplated assassination. They were dealing with the matter of a visa for his wife to go back to Russia. Now, there now there is one angle to this thing that I’m hopeful to get some word on today. This woman, his wife, has been very hostile. She would not cooperate; speaks Russian and Russian only. She did say to us yesterday down there that if we could give her assurance that she would be allowed to remain in the country she might cooperate. I told our agents down there to give her that assurance; that she could stay in this country, and I sent a Russian-speaking agent into Dallas last night to interview her so that we’ve got her now and whether she knows anything or talks anything, I, of course, don’t know and won’t know till …

LBJ: Where did he work in the building? On this same floor?

JEH: He had access on all floors.

LBJ: But where was his office?

JEH: Well, he didn’t have any particular office. He would … an order came in for certain books and some books would be on the first floor, second floor, third floor, and so forth

LBJ: But he didn’t have a particular place he was stationed?

JEH: No, he had no particular place where he was stationed at all. He was just a general packer of the requisitions that came in for school books for the … from the Dallas schools there and therefore he had access, perfectly proper access, to the fifth floor and to the sixth floor. Usually most the employees were down on a lower floor.

LBJ: Did anybody hear … did anybody see him on the fifth floor or …?

JEH: Yes, he was seen on the fifth floor by one of the workmen there before the assassination took place. He was seen there, so that …

LBJ: Did you get a picture of him? Shooting?

JEH: Oh, no. There was no picture taken of him shooting.

LBJ: Well what was this picture that fellow sold for $25,000?

JEH: That was a picture taken of the parade and showing Mrs. Kennedy climbing out of the back seat. You see there was no Secret Service man standing on the back of the car. Usually, the Presidential car, in the past, has had steps on the back next to the bumpers, and there’s usually been one on either side standing on those steps at the back bumper. And whether the President asked that that not be done, we don’t know. And the bubble-top was not up. But the bubble-top wasn’t worth a damn anyway because it is made entirely of plastic and much to my surprise, the Secret Service do not have any armored cars.

LBJ: Do you … do you have a bullet-proof car?

JEH: Oh, yes I do.

LBJ: You think I ought to have one?

JEH: You most certainly should have one, most certainly should have. Because I have one here, we have one in New York. We use it for different purposes. I use it here for myself and if we have any raids to make or have to surround a place where anybody is hidden in, we used the bullet-proof car on that because you can bullet-proof the entire car, including the glass. But it means that you -- that the top has remain up. You can never let the top down and it looks exactly like any other car but I do think you ought to have a bullet-proof car. And, uh, but I was surprised the other day when I made inquiry. All that I understand that the Secret Service has had, has had two cars with metal plates underneath the car to take care of a hand grenade or bomb that might be thrown out and rolled along the street. Well, of course, we don’t do these things in this country. In Europe that is the way they assassinate the heads of state or with bombs. They’ve been after General De Gaulle, you know, with that sort of thing but in this country, all of our assassinations have been with guns and for that reason I think very definitely. I was very much surprised when I learned that this bubble-top thing was NOT bullet-proof in any respect and that the plastic,  the top to it was down, the President had insisted upon that so that he could stand up and wave to the crowd. Now it seems to me that the President ought to always be in a bullet-proof car. It certainly would prevent anything like this from ever happening again. It doesn’t mean … you could have a thousand Secret Service men on guard and still a sniper can snipe you from up in the window if you are exposed like the President was. But he can’t do it if you have a solid top, bullet-proof top to it as it should be.

LBJ: You mean, if I ride around in my ranch, I ought to be in a bullet-proof car?

JEH: Well, I would certainly think so, Mr. President. It seems to me that that car down at your ranch there, the car that we rode around in when I was down there, I think it ought to be bullet-proof. I think it ought to be down quietly. There is a concern, I think, out in Cincinnati where we have our cars bullet-proofed. I think we’ve got four, one on the West Coast, one in New York, on here, and I think it can be done quietly without any publicity being given to it or any pictures being taken of it if it’s handled properly, but I think you ought to have, at the ranch there, it is perfectly easy for somebody to get on the ranch.

LBJ: Think all those entrances all ought to be guarded though, don’t you?

JEH: Oh, I thing by all mean. I think by all means. I think you’ve [got] to recognize, you’ve got to almost be in the capacity of a so-called prisoner because without the security, anything can be done. Now we’ve gotten a lot of letters and phone calls over the last three or four or five days. We got one about this parade the other day that they were going to try to kill you then and I talked with the Attorney General about it. I was very much opposed to that marching … the White House.

LBJ: Well, Secret Service told them not to, but the family felt otherwise.

JEH: That’s what Bobby told me. But when I heard of it, I talked with the Secret Service and they were very much opposed to it. I was very much opposed to it because it was even worse than there in Dallas, you know, walking down the center of the street.

LBJ: Yes, yes, that’s right.

JEH: And somebody on the sidewalk could dash out, even on Pennsylvania Avenue. I viewed the procession coming back from the Capitol and while they had police assigned along the curbstone, looking at the crowd, when the parade came along, the police turned around and looked at the parade, which was the worst thing to do. They also had a line of soldiers but they were looking at the parade.

LBJ: Well, I’m going to take every precaution I can and I want to talk to you and I wish you’d put down your thoughts on that a little bit. You’re more than the head of the Federal Bureau, as far as I’m concerned, you’re my brother and personal friend. You have been for 25 to 30 years, so I don’t want, I know you don’t want anything happening to your family.

JEH: Absolutely NOT.

LBJ: So you just … I’ve got more confidence in your judgment than anybody in town so you just put down some of the things you think I ought to have and I won’t involve you or quote you or get you in jurisdictional disputes or anything. But I’d like to at least advocate them as my opinion.

JEH: I’ll be very glad to indeed. I certainly appreciate your confidence.

LBJ: Thank you, Edgar. Thank you.

JEH: Fine. Thank you.