Memo dated 3-3-64 from John McCone CIA to James Rowley US Secret Service
dfdean1
Can anyone confirm one way or another if this document is geniune and from
the National Archives or as has been suggested to me by John McAdams a
forgery?
dfdean1
Anthony Marsh
We have only discussed this document a few times in the past. It is a fake
and not that cleverly done.
John McAdams immediately suspected it was a fake and asked us if there is
anything to confirm that it is indeed a fake.
When I looked at it I knew instantly that it was a fake. How? It is not
written in the proper format using the proper CIA style. One tip off is
the marking "CO-2-34,030." That is actually from a Secret Service report.
How would I know? Because I had obtained and used on my Web site some of
the pages from that SS report, so the notation jumped out as a
fabrication. What someone did was take a page from the SS report, maybe
even downloaded it from my Web page, removed the original text and wrote
their own. Also the wording is not how the CIA would word a document of
that type at that time. They would not refer to Hoover by name or agencies
by common names. Instead you would see code words like ODACID. You need to
look at hundreds of thousands of genuine CIA documents as I have to
develop a mental database of what genuine CIA documents look like. I have
no doubt that the hoaxer really thought that something like that was said.
I don't think the intent was like the other hoaxes to discredit all JFK
assassination research. I think someone just assumed that he knew enough
to create a realistic fake to incriminate the CIA.
tomnln
Find Official Records HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
"dfdean1" <dfd...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:45786794$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
gary...@yahoo.com
To the best of my knowledge this document is not in the National
Archives. I have put together what I have on the document at
http://mccone-rowley.blogspot.com
I obtained this document from a former tabloid writer and originally
posted it on Rich dela Rosa's forum. Since then it has made the rounds.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:K7idnUoMF9eR6-XY...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
glean a sense of what real security documents look like.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jL5eh.3803$a14....@newsfe24.lga...
Anthony Marsh
> I wonder how you can Prove that Marsh?
>
>
I don't have to prove who did it. I was explaining HOW it was done.
Like the Nixon/Ruby or the MJ-12 documents. I could name names, but
there is not enough proof to stand up in court.
Anthony Marsh
> It's Genuine until someone is named as a Forger.
>
Wrong. Many historical documents have been proven to be forgeries
without having to prove who made them.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WaCdnbjzqLDuvefY...@comcast.com...
tomnln
Until you Prove Forgery,
There is NO Forgery.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7a2dnZyWhY7rkufY...@comcast.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
Anthony?
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:kYqeh.337$oS1...@newsfe20.lga...
Anthony Marsh
> What about the Zip Code?
>
You're talking about the fake Nixon/Ruby letter? Yes, that was instantly
a tipoff.
Anthony Marsh
> Very Simple Marsh;
>
> Until you Prove Forgery,
> There is NO Forgery.
>
Now you've changed your position. You originally said that we had to
prove who did the forgery.
tomnln
Researchers:
LoneNutters for several years have attempted to debunk the HUAC memo
linking Ruby with Nixon by stating that ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE AT THE
TIME THE MEMO WAS WRITTEN.
Well...today while doing some filing, I came across my copy of the memo,
and it is very obvious that they are wrong. There IS a zip code on the
copy of the document, BUT IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE ZIP CODE IS ONLY ON
THE >>>FBI COVER SHEET<<< WRITTEN AT A MUCH LATER DATE THAN THE ORIGINAL
MEMO!
The one-page xerox obviously is really a composite of 2 different
documents. At the top is a half-page undated FBI note STAPLED TO THE TOP
OF A FULL PAGE UNDERNEATH. Only the bottom half of the full sheet is seen.
The note, on the letterhead of the Office of the Director, is signed by
LS. It does have an illegible zip code. The cover sheet says...
QUOTE:
NOTE: Extra copy. Inclosure not verified by official
report. Return to file. This is sensitive.
Obviously, a note of transmittal has been attached years later to an extra
copy of a document found in the HUAC files. THEN THERE IS A VERY OBVIOUS
SHADOW OF THE EDGE OF THE HALF-PAGE COVER SHEET SLANTING ACROSS THE
XEROXED PAGE
Under the shadow the LOWER HALF OF THE HUAC DOCUMENT IS SEEN.
Here is what the HUAC document says:
QUOTE:
It is my sworn statement that one Jack Rubenstein of Chicago
noted as a potential witness for hearings of the House Committee
on UnAmerican Activities is performing information functions for
the staff of Cong. Richard M. Nixon, Rep. or California. It is
requested Rubenstein not be called for open testimony in those
aforementioned hearings.
Sworn on this day 24 November 1947
SIGNATURE REDACTED
Staff Assistant
I hope this accurate assessment of this dual document debunks the zip code
myth. If it is a fake document, the ZIP code is obviously immaterial to
such a conclusion, since it is on a transmittal cover sheet. The HUAC
document and its FBI cover sheet seem genuine to me. On this basis, I
believe Ruby was an informant for Nixon circa 1947.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aoudnaPbTb_JP-bY...@comcast.com...
tomnln
You're STILL Side-Stepping the issue.
PROVE it or, stop offering Excuses for the Liars of the WCR.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SN6dnTQDz-clIubY...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> And, you're Consistent Marsh.
>
> You're STILL Side-Stepping the issue.
>
> PROVE it or, stop offering Excuses for the Liars of the WCR.
>
I already proved that it was a forgery. I do not have to prove who did
it. Your argument presupposes that it is genuine. It is not.
tomnln
Your Claims are NOT Proof.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tY6dnX3fGsSU9ODY...@comcast.com...
dfdean1
COLLECTION. THEY HAE NO RECORD OF THE MCCONE/ROWLEY MEMO--
We appreciate your interest in the JFK Assassination Records Collection.
Your request was forwarded to our office because we have custody of the JFK
Assassination Records Collection. We have received several requests for
information about the McCone/Rowley Memo in the past. Our staff conducted an
extensive search of the President John F.
Kennedy Assassination Records Collection. In addition to searches on the JFK
Database, we carried out physical searches of the files. The file series
searched included Lee Harvey Oswald's 201 file; the CIA Miscellaneous File;
the United States Secret Service's official case file on the assassination;
the Russ Holmes Work File; and the Assassination Records Review Board's
files related to the CIA. We were unable to locate a copy of, or any
reference to, this document in the Collection.
If we may be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact our
office directly at specialac...@nara.gov.
Sincerely,
Heather MacRae
Archivist
Special Access & FOIA Staff
"dfdean1" <dfd...@roadrunner.com> wrote in message
news:45786794$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> You "Claimed" it was a Forgery Marsh.
>
> Your Claims are NOT Proof.
>
>
Wrong. My claims are proof, because I documented the defects.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JIGdnSmRavXxVuPY...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> And, your Proof "IS"??
>
>
The notation which came from a SS report.
tomnln
Why not just post the official record proving Forgery?
Getting citations from you is like a Dentist pulling teeth.
Please prove the Nixon-Ruby report is a forgery?
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WYOdnRBjPc8MHh3Y...@comcast.com...