Nixon-Ruby

[Peter McGuire]

It seems that the FBI keeps fake documents in their files ( when that explanation is convienient) but it is more likely that the document linking Nixon to Ruby was authentic.

The sworn statement is just another example of evidence found that would blow the case wide open only to be handled in a manner that neutralizes the evidence and gets in the way of getting to the truth of this matter.

It is utterly amazing to me that this destruction of evidence has been repeated over and over in the matter of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

For those not familiar with the FBI memorandum located by political science professor Trowbridge Ford;

The memo stated:

"It is my sworn statement that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago, noted as a potentional witness for hearing of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, is performing information functions for the staff of Congressman Richard Nixon, Republican of California. It is requested that Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in the aformentioned hearings."

As Jim Marrs puts it:

"Legitimate or not, the matter raises even more suspicion when viewed with Nixon's presence in Dallas the day Kennedy died."

Nevertheless, I believe that, like countless evidence in this matter that has been "dealt with" , this memo was legitmate, especially considering that this is a tired and worn out tale, one that is not fooling people any longer.

'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'

Edited May 13, 2009 by Peter McGuire

[Peter McGuire]

.....in this matter that has been "dealt with"......

Dealt with means the same as debunked. I understand that this matter, like the Zapruder Film, has been debunked.

But do you still believe what your eyes see, in the case of the Zapruder Film?

I bet you most people do.

So, really, what would being debunked really mean anyway?

'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'

[Chris Halbower]

Is the document fake? I didn't know the authenticity of the Nixon/Ruby document was in question.

[Denis Pointing]

Is the document fake? I didn't know the authenticity of the Nixon/Ruby document was in question.

Chris, the link below explains the pros & cons as to whether the document is genuine or not. Make up your own mind and please post your opinion. Denis.

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/12/...t-document.html

Edited May 14, 2009 by Denis Pointing

[John Dolva]

In 47 Nixon also did a tour of Europe. He was also insturmental in boosting the republican vote by importing large numbers of Nazis to the US and providing them with new ID's. The Nazis being uncovered now are merely the tip of the iceberg, and the accusation that they forged their ID's is wrong. They were provided with the forgeries and used them as instructed.

_________________________

The Copy available indicates it itself is a copy of a copy that has been folded. The original documents were not copied aligned with the photocopiers edges,. as indicated by the fold of the copy of them. This was unfolded and copied and this is what we have here in a cropped format, possibly cut from an A3 with a paper cutter.

[Chris Halbower]

What is the origin of the Nixon/Ruby document? Who discovered it originally?

[Peter McGuire]

Is the document fake? I didn't know the authenticity of the Nixon/Ruby document was in question.

The matter is explained away in this manner: Rubenstein changed his name to Ruby after he moved to Dallas, yet according to a Chicago newspaper article, he was a Chicago-area resident. The form of the page is wrong, since there is something missing between the letterhead and the content and zip codes did not exist at that time. Finally, the 1947 Rubenstein was supposedly much older than the Jack Ruby who was linked to organized crime and shot Oswald. A supposed newspaper investigation included either an interview with the real Rubenstein or with someone who knew exactly who he was. The newspaper account was carried, in various lengths, by one of the wire services and appeared in many papers around the country.

It sounds to me like this matter was explained away in a similar manner as Umbrella Man, where someone was manufactured to be the actual person in question.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Peter McGuire