Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Did Nixon know Jack Ruby?

I don't want people to think that this blog fixates on the Great Unpleasantness of 50 years ago -- although I do feel obligated to mount some sort of resistance against the deceptive works filling our bookstores and teevee screens. Even if you have an allergic reaction whenever anyone starts to discuss the minutia surrounding that event, you may find the following to be of interest.

Robin Ramsay, editor of the quirky (but respected) U.K. parapolitical journal Lobster, has reviewed a book called The Man Who Killed Kennedy. This work claims that LBJ masterminded the assassination. I don't buy this idea, for reasons we may discuss another time. But the book makes one assertion that intrigued Ramsay and startled me:
‘Stone reveals, in a game changing addition to the historical record, that Richard Nixon recognized Lee Harvey Oswald’s assassin, strip club owner Jack Ruby, as “one of Lyndon Johnson’s boys” who Nixon had arranged to be placed as a paid informant for the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1947 as a favor to then Congressman Lyndon Johnson.....Stone reveals that Nick Ruwe (a former top aide to Nixon) said that when Nixon saw Jack Ruby on TV after he murdered Oswald, Nixon exclaimed, “I know that man!”’
Ramsay adds: "This is new and significant." Indeed. But is it true?

The 1990 obit for L. Nicholas Ruwe may be found here. Oddly enough, he befriended Hunter S. Thompson. If you type "Nick Ruwe Nixon" into Google, most of the links will take you to stories about his interactions with the world's most infamous drug-addled journalist.

The author of the above-referenced book, Roger Stone, also worked for Nixon. In this interview, Stone says that he got the information from a personal discussion with Ruwe.

My questions:

1. Why didn't Ruwe mention this Nixonian "recognition scene" to anyone else? You'd think that Hunter Thompson would have loved the story.

2. Did Stone record his Ruwe interview? Since Ruwe is dead, and since some of Stone's other assertions seem dubious, we would all be better off if Stone put his evidence on the record.

3. Entire books have been written about Jack Ruby. (The best is Seth Kantor's.) If Ruby worked for LBJ, how did all previous authors miss this important link?

4. In the letter reproduced here (written in prison), Ruby recommends a short anti-LBJ book titled A Texan Looks at Lyndon. He calls LBJ a "Nazi of the worst order." So why doesn't he simply add "I should know -- I worked for the guy"? Why be coy?

Later in the letter, Ruby says:
... isn't it strange that Oswald who hasn't worked a lick most of his life, should be fortunate enough to get a job at the Book Building two weeks before the president himself didn't know as to when he was to visit Dallas, now where would a jerk like Oswald get the information that the president was coming to Dallas? Only one person could have had that information, and that man was Johnson who knew weeks in advance as to what was going to happen, because he is the one who was going to arrange the trip for the president, this had been planned long before the president himself knew about, so you can figure that one out. The only one who gained by the shooting of the president was Johnson, and he was in a car in the rear and safe when the shooting took place. What would the Russians, Castro or anyone else have to gain by eliminating the president? If Johnson was so heartbroken over Kennedy, why didn't he do something for Robert Kennedy? All he did was snub him.
Clearly, Jack Ruby was an early "LBJ did it" theorist. (For what it's worth, so was my father. I may tell that story at another time.) But if he's willing to lambaste the new president in this letter, why wouldn't he also mention that he was himself an "LBJ man"?

Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing what Stone says that Ruwe said that Nixon said.

Added note: A young Jack Ruby did once work for Al Capone as an errand boy. Quite a resume, Jack had. But I doubt that Johnson was one of his bosses.
So much "evidence" in the half century-old case has been discovered to be either strategically altered or completely fabricated, Joseph, that it behooves you to tell us why you think this Ruby letter is genuine.

Or for that matter, the widely available versions of the Zap-film -- which conveniently are all missing the eyewitness-described stopping of the limo to assist the shooters in getting a better bead for the fatal head shot.

Or are you still a fan of the spooky Mr. Groden?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andy, nutcases like you have done incredible injury to the spirit of dissent in this country. Why don't you read that wacko Jim Fetzer's site? I think you'd feel more comfortable with him.

Fetzer is the leading proponent of this crap about Zapruder film alteration. He's also the guy who thinks that the Twin Towers were destroyed by space lasers. As I've said before, Fetzer is the kind of guy who'd believe you if you told him that Oreos are imported from Mars.

Bottom line, Andy: Get the fuck out of here.

I left JFK research (to the degree I was in it) when Fetzer and Jack White started to spew nonsense about the Z film. That's when I decided that the nutcases had taken over the field.

I know a hell of a lot more about special effects than Fetzer does, and I used to be an amateur film-maker. What Fetzer describes is NOT POSSIBLE. What Fetzer describes would be difficult enough to pull off with modern digital effects. It was way beyond the realm of the feasible in the 1960s.

Christ, did you ever see "2001"? Huge budget. 65mm original film stock. They had all the time in the world to do the job right. And the mattes look TERRIBLE. They looked bad even in the 1960s; even as a kid, I hated how jumpy they were. Do you really think that flawless mattes are possible in 8mm? Using HAND-HELD footage? They didn't have null objects then!

And do you know what happens to film grain when you take it down a generation?

Beyond that: Just what are you proposing in terms of standards evidence, Andy? What you want is obvious. You want to play Calvinball with the evidence. Seriously, that's what you are suggesting we all do. Anything that doesn't fit a preconceived idea gets tossed out as a contrivance.

Andy, you have really, really pissed me off this time. You will never be printed here again. Thanks to you , I may not write anything further about JFK assassination.

There's no point in talking about it any further. Nobody pays any attention to the GOOD researchers -- the careful ones who analyze documents and conduct interviews.

No, the case now belongs to lunatics like Andy. They've taken over.

You're understandably upset. I do not think you should 'punish' everyone because of the behaviour of one (or two or a few or however many). The near total loss of freedoms that we Americans had prior to 9/11 were taken away from us, to punish us for the actions of several people (the hijackers and perpetrators). It is this kind of policy and thinking, that everyone should be punished because one person or a group or whomever did such and such, that has been an excuse for the most hardcore, hard-lined authoritarianism that our imaginations will allow us to conceive. I, for one, enjoy your JFK assassination articles and research. I hope you will reconsider your feelings and decide your blog readers, like me, are coming here to pay attention to you, not Andy Tyme or any Jim Fetzer, Gordon Duff, Joseph Farrell or Alex Jones wannabe. They are idiots and you smarter, more clever, and more ingenious than any of them.
Seems that the disinformation is flooding the web faster than legitimate work can ever hope to keep up. I think Mark Twain had something to say about how a lie can travel around the world before the truth ever has a chance to put its shoes on. I greatly appreciate your JFK posts Joseph. A recent blog post on another site got me looking at how much JFK nonsense is now on You Tube. Your recent post, "JFK books: How to tell the crap from the candy" is a useful tool for those of us trying to sort the wheat from the chaff in this field. Cannonfire plays an important role in maintaining credibility to the efforts of investigating organized crime (can't use "conspiracy" anymore, it's been tainted just like the word "liberal").

The JFK Books post got me reading a lot of book reviews and there I ran across this little nugget of info from Roger Stone about Nixon recognizing Ruby as being one of Lyndon's boy's. Been thinking about this a lot and I'm glad you posted on the subject. I suspect this little nugget is comparable to the nuggets that might develop on an intrusive butt hair.

Roger Stone has had a long successful career as a paid political operative for the Republican Party. He's a dirty trickster, an experienced rat fukker. He was responsible for the Brooks Brothers Riot that ended the vote count for Al Gore. Stone's partner in crime, er his wife, is suspected of being the mystery woman who supplied the tainted documents about Bush's Air National Guard service that took down Dan Rather. Roger Stone deceives for a living.

Operatives of the Republican Party have long been working overtime to polish the record of Reagan who now stands upon a pedestal as Saint Ronnie, and have worked to denigrate the memories of past successful Democratic leaders. Seems nowadays that nobody can mention JFK without bringing up his prolific sex life. Why it's amazing the guy had time to do his job as president with all the women he was bonking. Pretty incredible when you realize that the guy was crippled with back pain after having spinal surgery and always wore a back brace. Same with Martin Luther King. Mention his name and everyone smiles thinking about all the sex tapes that J Edgar had made on the guy. This is an organized disinformation campaign to besmirch their memories, and it's been successful.

Now what better way to ruin Johnson's legacy than to smear him as being the mastermind of Kennedy's assassination? It negates all of LBJ's accomplishments and also diminishes JFK as being someone pulled down by an underling. And to have the heinous crime spelled out by Tricky Dick? Why that elevates Nixon as being the wise clever one who recognized the shenanigans of the dysfunctional murderous house of Democrats. What a story! And coming from Roger Stone, professional republican political operative, ratfukker extraordinaire,... you shouldn't believe a word of it.

Oh but Roger Stone doesn't work for the Republican Party anymore. He now calls himself a Libertarian!

What to make of what you get by taking the mirror image of the last line of characters on Jack Ruby's grave?

Has anybody serious looked into how that came about?
Mr. Cannon,

I am one of a minority of Americans that believe that Oswald shot Kennedy and he acted alone. Nevertheless, I have some questions that perhaps you could help answer.
1. I went to the sixth floor of the School Book Depository building. The first question I had was why Oswald didn’t shoot Kennedy when he was on Houston street before he turned onto Elm. It would seem that it would be an easier shot when the car is coming toward Oswald rather than when he is going away. The docent there said that question was frequently asked and he didn’t know the answer. The only thing I can think of is that shooting him in front is personal while shooting in the back is impersonal.
2. Starting with Richard Lawrence and going though John Hinckley, none of the lone nuts who assassinated, or attempted to assassinate, a president or presidential candidate left the scene of the crime. It is only when there is a conspiracy that the criminal leaves the scene. The assassination that is most similar to Kennedy is the assassination of William Goebel, the only governor ever assassinated. Why did Oswald leave the scene and more importantly, where was he going? Something in my memory tells me that Whaley says that he dropped Oswald off by a public phone and that Oswald made a phone call, but I haven’t been able to verify that memory. I think that came from “Seeds of Doubt” in the New Republic about two weeks after the assassination.
I'm told the inscription spelled "Tav Nun Tzadik Bet Hey" is common on Jewish graves, meaning "May his soul be bound up in the bond of eternal life". So there's probably nothing special about that being on Jack Ruby's grave, even given what it spells out in mirror-image... along folks...
According to David Talbot, in 1975 Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post said that the reason he never investigated the assassination was because he was "up to his ass in lunatics." Obviously you're not the Post, Joe, but the point is that it wasn't a very good excuse then, and it's not a very good one now. Talbot also wrote that in 2004, Bradley admitted to him that the real reason he never got into the case was because he was afraid for his career. From your style, Joe, I can't imagine that you share that same concern. Please, carry on. This is the moment.
After 30 years of research into the JFK assassination, there are still some aspects of the case about which I am agnostic. One of them is the authenticity of the Zapruder film. I am troubled by that blob of flesh over Kennedy's right ear, which does not correspond to the Parkland and Bethesda doctors' reports. But I am willing to leave that door unopened, because it leads to a creepy basement where other taboo and perhaps propagandistic theories grow like mold.

In my book “The Grassy Knoll Report,” I make very little mention of: the three tramps, the babushka lady, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman and the role of Roscoe White. These are pitfalls, perhaps deliberately set by disinformationists, that make well-intentioned researchers fight amongst themselves.

The new “Smoking Gun” documentary is a brazen example of the utter bullshit that has infected mainstream discourse. The source book (which is riddled with factual errors that any newbie can shoot down) and the TV adaptation say almost nothing about the larger context of anti-Kennedy hatred in Dallas, mob interests in Cuba and intelligence-agency skullduggery is every country that didn't bow to our corporate control. “The Smoking Gun” ignores Oswald's spooky background, Jack Ruby's obvious ties to the Mafia and the many reports of suspicious activity behind the picket fence.

In the JFK research commuunity, the provenance and the meaning of the memo in which Congressman Richard Nixon thanks a "Jack Rubenstein" for squealing to Nixon's anti-communist committee has been subject to debate. I don't doubt that Ruby crossed paths with both Nixon and LBJ, because Ruby was the fixer in a politically and economically important town. Certainly, Johnson's oil buddies such as Hunt and Murchison played in high stakes poker games organized by Ruby.

But half truths and tenuous connections can be used to hang honest researchers by puppet strings of which they were not aware. Dan Rather botched the early coverage of the Kennedy assassination, yet years later I felt bad for the guy when he was conned by a Republican operative over the George W Bush draft-dodging documents. Those documents were essentially true, yet a spook re-typed them on a new computer and added a few obvious inconsistencies. So when Rather took the bait, this spook turned around and contacted allies in the right wing blogosphere to alert them that there were factual and typographical inconsistencies in the documents that Rather was using.

The spook's name was Roger Stone, a man who is so loyal to Richard Nixon that he has a huge Tricky Dick tattoo on his back. We see it in Alex Gibney's documentary “Client Nine,” in which Stone plays coy about whether he was the operative who ambushed Eliot Spitzer.

Now Stone has a book blaming LBJ for the Kennedy assassination and leaving Nixon and his henchmen blameless. Yet the links between the assassination and Watergate are too glaring to ignore. E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Bernard Barker are characters whose names repeatedly surface in the literature about both events.

So as with all things related to the Kennedy assassination, take Stone’s accusations with a grain of salt and seek verification elsewhere. But Joe, please don’t give up writing about the JFK case. Speaking the truth about this issue is the greatest moral challenge of my lifetime (and the greatest psychological challenge that didn’t involve one of my blood relations or bedmates). When I waver, I count on comrades like you to keep the faith and restore my own.
TJ: Thanks for the background on Stone!

I met Ed Hoffman in the days before I learned some ASL, so I can't say we spoke. But he seemed all right.

I also met Beverly Oliver (who claims to be the Babushka Lady) and stood next to her and Jean Hill during the midnight vigil on the 30th anniversary. You can't help liking Beverly -- she's a classic character, with a typically outrageous B-girl background. Yeah, her story seems over-the-top, but every former stripper or exotic dancer or bar girl I've ever met has over-the-top tales to tell.

I can't prove she was the Babushka Lady. Maybe she's another "Princess Cariboo" type. I've met more than my share of women like that. But in her defense, she didn't come forward -- she was discovered. Wasn't it by Gary Shaw? And I don't think she ever made money from the claim.

So I guess you could say that my gut reaction is take her at her word, but my more rational reaction is to remain agnostic.

Now, Judy Vary -- I feel comfortable placing her in the "Princess Cariboo" file.

Juniper: Sorry, but I can sympathize with Bradlee's remark about being up to his ass in lunatics. That's why no-one can write about 9/11 anymore, even though there are hundreds of unanswered questions concerning that event. Alas, by 2006 the sea of lunacy had risen WAY past the ass-line.

Addendum: Beverly does have a book out. "Nightmare in Dallas." Published in 1994. Held it in my hand, looked at it, did not buy it or read it, and later forgot all about it. Sorry!
Actually, I do tend to believe Beverly Oliver and Ed Hoffman, I think the tramps were conspirators and I suspect Roscoe White was a minor player too (but not a shooter). I just didn't want to stake my reputation on any of them. I waste enough time arguing with people who think Oswald ordered and fired the rifle.

I am a researcher of over years. Your article appeared on my blog, which I read with interest and thought you might be interested in my article, "JFK and the 5 Presidents".

I am a researcher of over years. Your article appeared on my blog, which I read with interest and thought you might be interested in my article, "JFK and the 5 Presidents".
Here is the 1947 document that confirms Nixon knew Jack Ruby. Golda Meir's recently declassified JFK conversation also has her saying Lee act as if he knew Jack Ruby, too, before being shot!
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic