Jack S. Martin Sr.

[John Dolva]

The guy who pushed the on button on the camera?

[Paul Trejo]

The guy who pushed the on button on the camera?

Well, of course John; what I meant was, WHO WAS JACK T. MARTIN, REALLY?

If he wasn't a 17-year old in August of 1963 as the FBI records claim, then why would the FBI get this wrong?

More to the point - why did John T. Martin volunteer to share the film with Weisberg and Schoener?

Was he a CIA plant? Was he a rightist operative? Did he really become a pacifist as he told Schoener?

He was clearly a rightist extremist in 1963, and probably before that, because in my definition anybody who is a member of both the Minutemen and the John Birch Society is a rightist extremist.

But in 1968, when he volunteered to share his film with Weisberg and Schoener, WHAT DID HE HOPE THEY WOULD FIND?

Weisberg and Schoener studied the film for faces of those in the crowd near Lee Harvey Oswald, to detect possible accomplices. They did not ask John T. Martin (very much) about General Walker. (Did he volunteer information that they didn't hear because Walker wasn't on their radar?)

What's a little confusing is that John Martin told Gary Schoener that he became a pacifist during the time he served under General Walker in Germany, and struggled to keep his honorable discharge. That would have been in 1960-1961. Walker thought of pacifists as Communist sympathizers. He would have been livid.

But then, why would John T. Martin in 1963 go visit General Walker's house to take photographs of the bullet holes, and then a little later go to New Orleans to film Oswald in the act of being a 'communist?'

It is more likely that John T. Martin was only thinking about pacifism in 1960-1961, but still kept his external loyalties to General Walker. This would explain why he cooperated with General Walker in sheep-dipping Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.

Then, by 1968, when John T. Martin met with Weisberg and Schoener, he completed his commitment to pacifism, turned away from Walker and the John Birch Society, and sought political activities among the comparatively more conservative players like Weisberg and Schoener.

This is speculation, obviously, but it more easily explains the existence of a film that shows both the shot-up house of General Walker in the first few minutes of the reel, and then the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA in the final minutes of the reel.

Martin Shackelford says that it looks like a home movie. I'm sure that it does. I believe that was Walker's intention. After the assassination of JFK, several people contacted the FBI with information 'proving' that Oswald was a communist (thus justifying an immediate invasion of Cuba). John T. Martin was among those people, I'd speculate.

Five years later, he'd long changed his mind and gone straight.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 30, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul, I sent a PM to you on the 28th. Click on your name in the top right corner of your browser window and click on messenger. I am not posting

the info in the PM publicly, because I can think of no way to maintain the privacy of irrelevant persons named and described very personally in the pages I am providing you a link to.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I sent a PM to you on the 28th. Click on your name in the top right corner of your browser window and click on messenger. I am not posting

the info in the PM publicly, because I can think of no way to maintain the privacy of irrelevant persons named and described very personally in the pages I am providing you a link to.

Tom, many thanks for explaining how these links work, but especially for what you sent me -- a letter from Gary Schoener to Harold Weisberg from 30Apr93. (Since the letter has irrelvant personal and family references, I honor your request to post only the relevant parts for this thread.)

But part of this personal letter is very relevant to this thread, so I will post that part publicly:

--------------- BEGIN GARY SCHOENER LETTER 1993 -----------------

From: Gary Schoener

To: Harold Weisberg

Date: 30 April 1993

<snip>

The major prompting for this letter was two things. It has been a long time and I was thinking of you and [your family], as I always do, when I look at anything which reminds me of the old days.

The second reason was that I got a call from a guy working for Frontline who asked about the John Martin film which surfaced when you did the WLOL radio appearances out her so many years ago. Apparently, on closer examination of the entire film, something I never did because it was supposedly "family" footage, it appears that John Martin shot footage in General Walker's living room after the "Oswald" shooting, when the hole was in the wall!

I recall that Martin told us that he lad left [that] right-wing work when Walker's far right-wing stance turned him into a pacifist who was discharged because he wouldn't pick up a weapon. This would obviously not square with a visit to Walker in Dallas in 1963! Jim Marr's book lists it as a strange coincidence.

I'm still looking around for my copy of the film to screen it and see what they are talking about. If this is accurate I would have trouble explaining: 1. why Martin told us what he did; 2. why Martin would have given us the film. Unfortunately, there are many John Martin's in the phone book here and I have not had the time to try to locate him. I feel old just saying this -- but it was 25 years ago! Can so much time have passed?

<snip>

Gary

--------------- END GARY SCHOENER LETTER 1993 -----------------

This is truly an amazing find, Tom. I really appreciate your sharing this. Here we have, nearly 20 years ago, a discussion between Schoener and Weisberg that just about perfectly matches the thread we are forming on the Education Forum today!

The same bullet points are there! Why did this alleged pacifist in 1961 go to visit Walker in Dallas in 1963 to film the bullet holes in his house? If he wasn't a pacifist in 1961, but said that he was, then was he truly a pacifist in 1968 when he spoke to Schoener? And in any case, exactly why did John T. Martin give Weisberg and Schoener the film at all? What was he expecting them to find?

It is amazing that our questions today are the same as the Schoener-Weisberg questions of 1993. It's as though these facts about the Jack Martin Film stick out like a sore thumb after a half century!

Allow me to summarize the big picture, please.

1. Frank Ellis, an agent for AFT (Alcohol-Firearms-Tobacco) told the Warren Commission that he believed the JFK assassination was a plot by General Walker and the John Birch Society.

2. Jack Ruby told Earl Warren himself that the JFK assassination was a plot by General Walker and the John Birch Society.

3. We have on our Forum the well-known Harry Dean, whose memoirs say that he witnessed General Walker and the John Birch Society plan to make Lee Harvey Oswald a patsy in a plot to assassinate JFK.

4. We have Attorney Liebeler, interviewing General Walker for the Warren Commission, asking why a German newspaperman, Helmut Muench, would say that General Walker told him before 7am on 11/23/1963 (less than 20 hours after the JFK assassination) that Lee Harvey Oswald was not only JFK's killer, but also his own shooter from 4/10/1963.

5. We have Dick Russell's effort in, The Man Who Knew Too Much, to interview General Walker personally -- twice -- to ask him these same questions and similar questions.

Now, with this as background, we have the mystery of the Jack Martin Film. It is like a Rosetta Stone, because it contains footage of the bullet holes in General Walker's house, and Lee Harvey Oswald being arrested for FPCC-related violence with CIA connected Cuban Exiles, and filmed by a CIA connected production company.

On top of this, Jack Martin seems to be lying to Weisberg and Schoener about his role in taking the film (he was a pacifist), and the FBI apparently lying about his age (saying he was 17 in 1963, when he himself said he served under General Walker in Germany, yet Walker quit the Army in 1961).

It is an intriguing little riddle. I like it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo, MA

<edit typos>

Edited January 31, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Uhhhh....Paul? The kid was registered as a $2.00 paying member of the Minutemen, as of summer, 1963. Years later, he is described as a "student".

http://jfk.hood.edu/...try/Itai-00.pdf

INSIDE THE ASSASSINATION INDUSTRY

By

Harold Weisberg

© 1998, 2004

18 Garrison Like the FBI Avoided Learning who the Associates Oswald Had in

New Orleans Were

http://jfk.hood.edu/...try/Itai-18.pdf

.....In late April or early May, 1968, I returned to New Orleans, first stopping off at the upper Mississippi twin cities to speak at the University of Minnesota at Minneapolis and do some radio talk shows there and in St. Paul. The speech was in an afternoon, in a large hall, with the public invited, no admission fee. Among the things I talked about was this Oswald establishing a sort of cover with his

leafletting and picketing. Before I finished speaking, several students told my psychologist friend Gary Schoener, who had invited me, that some nice old ladies literally in tennis shoes, saw two men, Ivy League types, with a poorly-hidden recorder. Gary told me and I then needled them by spelling all names and asking to be stopped if I spoke too rapidly.

During the speech a student who identified himself as John Martin, reported taking amateur movies of Oswald when he was arrested as the result of the fracas started by the ultra-right wing Cuban anti-Castro activist Carlos Bringuier. He undoubtedly had been provoked on purpose by Oswald. I asked Martin if I might make a copy of his film, he agreed, and after the speech and questions Gary drove us to his home. He got the reel and then drove to where the University had a projection booth.

While Martin had captured only a little of that incident, there were many faces in it and I wanted to examine the footage with care. He loaned Gary his film immediately, before we left the small projection room. I had my large attache case with me. I was the only one of our small party with one.

That evening Gary drove me to the airport. I checked my luggage in. He and I watched it go down the Braniff chute. Shortly thereafter I enplaned for Kansas City, Kansas. That night I was to speak to and be asked questions by a small group of professional people including doctors, lawyers and at least one local judge in support of my friend the late Dr. John Nichols' effort to file an FOIA lawsuit

for JFK assassination information. John, a University of Kansas forensic pathologist, was waiting for me at the airport and an hour later we were both still waiting...

368

......But it did seem that someone, most likely the FBI, was quite interested in what I had gotten in

Minneapolis. The one thing that was public knowledge was the film Martin had described as showing

Oswald being arrested in New Orleans. Martin had spoken of it when I was speaking and had said

371

he'd let me see it.

Nothing was missing from my luggage other than the papers, the bills, receipts and matches.

But someone was obviously looking for something. The only possible explanation is that someone

wanted the Martin movies. That was not likely for the pictures he had taken while on a vacation that

began in Dallas and ended in New Orleans, where most of the footage was of the Audubon Zoo and of

bees on flowers.

It was not in my luggage. Nor was it in my pockets or in my attache case that I always carried.

Gary Schoener had it. Someone who had called in on a St. Paul talk show, one of a series I did

almost around the clock, had offered to help. He was a photographer.

Gary had duplicates of the reel made and this photographer made stills from some of the

footage showing Oswald being arrested. Martin's film has different angles on Oswald's face. It had that

additional interest and value.

He also told us that some of it had been removed- of that Oswald sequence. Someone

certainly did not want copies of that Martin film to exist. Even if it could only be surmised what the film could show. And all that it was known to hold was pictures of Oswald being arrested in the Bringuier fracas.

Of the possible reasons for any official interest in this John Martin film the most obvious is that it

could show and Oswald associate, what the government said he never had.

That is why I had a special interest in the Jones printing job for Oswald. My special interest

was generated by two FBI interview reports the FBI gave the Commission, of its interviews of Jones

and his secretary/assistant, Myra Silver. The reason the FBI froze the Secret Service out of that

investigation was apparent in these reports.

372

Tom, Harold Weisberg does not tell us the age of this fourth Jack (John) Martin in New Orleans in 1968, four and a half years after the JFK assassination.

Let's say, hypothetically, that he was a teenager in 1963. Is it possible that he also served under General Walker in the Army?

I ask this because the description of the film-taker is that he served under General Walker.

The US Army will only accept teenagers who are 18 and 19. But this Jack Martin would have had to serve under General Walker, and THEN be discharged from the Army, and STILL be a teenager in order to qualify as having served under General Walker and also be a teenager in the summer of 1963, when this film was taken.

So, how old was this Jack Martin that Harold Weisberg described in 1968?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

If anyone were to take the time to read pages 3 and 60 of the HSCA document that Mr. Scully has pointed out, a "John T. Martin" was already 17 years old, a Minuteman, and living in Minneapolis when an unnamed Minuteman in Missouri found approximately 400 Minuteman membership cards (including one for this John T. Martin) in the national headquarters' trash, and turned them in to the FBI on December 10, 1965.

http://www.maryferre...629&relPageId=3

http://www.maryferre...29&relPageId=60

Do the math and you'll see that this John T. Martin was 14 or 15 in August of 1963, and do some more math and figure out how old he would be today.

FWIW, according to one of those "internet background search" websites, there is a John Thomas Martin, apparently of the appropriate age, living in Minnesota today.

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if the Minuteman John T. Martin was a "junior"? Because, like they say: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" (or something like that).

Edited December 20, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

If anyone were to take the time to read pages 3 and 60 of the HSCA document that Mr. Scully has pointed out, a "John T. Martin" was already 17 years old, a Minuteman, and living in Minneapolis when an unnamed Minuteman in Missouri found approximately 400 Minuteman membership cards (including one for this John T. Martin) in the national headquarters' trash, and turned them in to the FBI on December 10, 1965.

http://www.maryferre...629&relPageId=3

http://www.maryferre...29&relPageId=60

Do the math and you'll see that this John T. Martin was 14 or 15 in August of 1963, and do some more math and figure out how old he would be today.

FWIW, according to one of those "internet background search" websites, there is a John Thomas Martin, apparently of the appropriate age, living in Minnesota today.

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if the Minuteman John T. Martin was a "junior"? Because, like they say: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" (or something like that).

Yes, Tommy, I did see that -- but it only raises more questions - it doesn't settle the question.

The biggest problem that Weisberg and Schoener faced, IMHO, is that "John Martin" is an amazingly common name, both in Minnesota and in the USA generally. Whether a Junior or a Senior, there are simply thousands of them. The name is too common for one person to resolve this alone. It would take a committee. (If Weisberg and Schoener were puzzled in 1968...)

Although some folks have argued for the possibility, my family's experience with the US military is that they might accept somebody 17 years old with a note from their parents lying about their birthday - but that's the extent of it. They don't accept 15 year old boys.

If this boy was 17 in 1965 (we don't know how old those membership cards were) then he was fourteen or fifteen in August, 1963 and it was utterly impossible for him to serve in the Army in Germany in 1960-1961, as a boy of about eleven.

Therefore, even with the exact same name, we must recognize that we have the wrong man.

Here are our options:

(1) The FBI made a mistake (as Gary Schoener thought);

(2) The FBI deliberately lied about John Martin, because they knew he was more deeply involved and they protected him.

(3) We made a mistaken assumption, i.e. that the cards found in MIssouri were current.

Because, if those cards actually represented a Minutemen membership list that was, say, 5 years old, that would make Martin 22 in 1965, and thus 18 in 1961, and we might reasonably say that we have our man. But all this depends on the FBI making a mistake in their dates -- so we are back to (1).

By the way, if this 17 year old John Martin was the son (Junior) of an older John Martin, the math suggests that his father would be too old to be the man we seek. Gary Schoener said that John Martin in 1968 was roughly his own age. He was not an older man, old enough to be his father.

I think we have to recognize that Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener missed an opportunity -- and they reflect their entire generation of JFK researchers -- they completely underestimated the importance of investigating ex-General Edwin Walker.

Schoener himself said it -- they were so focussed on Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA, and they scrutinized every face in that film for weeks, thinking that the clue they sought was there, and that Jack Martin wanted them to analyze that scene, that they didn't even make the connection with Walker. Why not just edit that out, they wondered.

They could not see the forest for the trees. The key was, IMHO, the connection between Walker and Oswald, there, in a material artifact, this film. The connection was right in front of them.

Gary Schoener sees that now - 45 years later. He told me that he would send me a copy of his Jack Martin Film if he ever finds it again within his piles of JFK artifacts. I still haven't seen the film after having contacted Martin Shackleford and broadcasting to this FORUM.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ian Kingsbury]

Paul/Tom

One of the hired hands giving out leaflets in N.O was named

Steele .

I believe his father was a marine and Thom Purvis did comment on the

Younger Steele having a very close resemblance to his father.

Maybe it was a generational thing and there's nothing as tight-lipped

As family?.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul/Tom

One of the hired hands giving out leaflets in N.O was named

Steele .

I believe his father was a marine and Thom Purvis did comment on the

Younger Steele having a very close resemblance to his father.

Maybe it was a generational thing and there's nothing as tight-lipped

As family?.

I remember that account, Ian, about Charles Hall Steele. Jim Garrison recognized young Charlie on TV as a boy who lived down the street from his family. Steele's father had a good standing in his community, so Jim Garrison called Mr. Steele and asked him how his boy could be handing out Communist leaflets on Canal street? Mr. Steele immediately asked his son, Charlie, who explained that he was standing in the Unemployment line a block away, and Lee Harvey Oswald offered young Charlie $2 for 15-20 minutes of work. (In those days, $2 was like $20 in today's currency.)

Charlie saw the value -- $20 (adj.) for 20 minutes of work is a good deal, so he took it. He didn't bother to notice that it was Communist propaganda, and he didn't pay much attention to the fact that news cameras were rolling around Oswald and himself.

Charlie Steele's father urged him to call his employer to warn him about this TV news broadcast, and then call the FBI, to tell them everything he knew, and that he had nothing to do with Communism -- it was all a big mistake.

As for Jack Martin, however, we are not sure if his name included Junior or Senior -- but we are sure of the following:

(1) Jack Martin knew ex-General Edwin Walker well enough to fly from Minnesota to Walker's home in Dallas and film those bullet holes

(2) Jack Martin knew Walker well enough to learn that Lee Harvey Oswald would be in New Orleans, in front of the Trade Mart on 9 August 1963, handing out these leaflets and getting arrested for causing a commotion.

(3) Jack Martin filmed all of this on the instructions of ex-General Walker (IMHO).

(4) Long before 1968 Jack Martin had a change of heart about his militant associations in the Minutemen and John Birch Society and with ex-General Walker. He was born-again so he quit his life of violence and guns.

(5) In 1968 Jack Martin went to hear Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener make a speech about the JFK assassination.

(6) After that speech, Jack Martin introduced himself to Weisberg and Schoener, briefly told them his life story, and gave them the Jack Martin Film.

(7) Gary Schoener in 1968 was about 24 years old, and he said that Jack Martin looked just slightly older than himself; his first guess was "late twenties."

This is the proper way to identify Jack Martin, because the man who actually made the film hand-delivered it to Gary Schoener, so Gary had a close-up look at the man. He was not 20 years old. He was not 35 years old. He was not a teenager. He was not the father of a teenager.

My notes suggest I should be searching for a man who was 21 in 1961, 23 in 1963, and 28 in 1968. Born probably in 1940, he would be 72 years old today. But even those narrow parameters are not narrow enough for a man with such a common name.

If I could talk to that same Jack Martin today, I would ask him all the questions that Harold Weisberg should have asked him in 1968 -- about ex-General Edwin Walker.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 20, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

If anyone were to take the time to read pages 3 and 60 of the HSCA document that Mr. Scully has pointed out, a "John T. Martin" was already 17 years old, a Minuteman, and living in Minneapolis when an unnamed Minuteman in Missouri found approximately 400 Minuteman membership cards (including one for this John T. Martin) in the national headquarters' trash, and turned them in to the FBI on December 10, 1965.

http://www.maryferre...629&relPageId=3

http://www.maryferre...29&relPageId=60

Do the math and you'll see that this John T. Martin was 14 or 15 in August of 1963, and do some more math and figure out how old he would be today.

FWIW, according to one of those "internet background search" websites, there is a John Thomas Martin, apparently of the appropriate age, living in Minnesota today.

--Tommy

P.S. I wonder if the Minuteman John T. Martin was a "junior"? Because, like they say: "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree" (or something like that).

Yes, Tommy, I did see that -- but it only raises more questions - it doesn't settle the question.

The biggest problem that Weisberg and Schoener faced, IMHO, is that "John Martin" is an amazingly common name, both in Minnesota and in the USA generally. Whether a Junior or a Senior, there are simply thousands of them. The name is too common for one person to resolve this alone. It would take a committee. (If Weisberg and Schoener were puzzled in 1968...)

Although some folks have argued for the possibility, my family's experience with the US military is that they might accept somebody 17 years old with a note from their parents lying about their birthday - but that's the extent of it. They don't accept 15 year old boys.

If this boy was 17 in 1965 (we don't know how old those membership cards were) then he was fourteen or fifteen in August, 1963 and it was utterly impossible for him to serve in the Army in Germany in 1960-1961, as a boy of about eleven.

Therefore, even with the exact same name, we must recognize that we have the wrong man.

Here are our options:

(1) The FBI made a mistake (as Gary Schoener thought);

(2) The FBI deliberately lied about John Martin, because they knew he was more deeply involved and they protected him.

(3) We made a mistaken assumption, i.e. that the cards found in MIssouri were current.

Because, if those cards actually represented a Minutemen membership list that was, say, 5 years old, that would make Martin 22 in 1965, and thus 18 in 1961, and we might reasonably say that we have our man. But all this depends on the FBI making a mistake in their dates -- so we are back to (1).

By the way, if this 17 year old John Martin was the son (Junior) of an older John Martin, the math suggests that his father would be too old to be the man we seek. Gary Schoener said that John Martin in 1968 was roughly his own age. He was not an older man, old enough to be his father.

I think we have to recognize that Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener missed an opportunity -- and they reflect their entire generation of JFK researchers -- they completely underestimated the importance of investigating ex-General Edwin Walker.

Schoener himself said it -- they were so focussed on Lee Harvey Oswald in NOLA, and they scrutinized every face in that film for weeks, thinking that the clue they sought was there, and that Jack Martin wanted them to analyze that scene, that they didn't even make the connection with Walker. Why not just edit that out, they wondered.

They could not see the forest for the trees. The key was, IMHO, the connection between Walker and Oswald, there, in a material artifact, this film. The connection was right in front of them.

Gary Schoener sees that now - 45 years later. He told me that he would send me a copy of his Jack Martin Film if he ever finds it again within his piles of JFK artifacts. I still haven't seen the film after having contacted Martin Shackleford and broadcasting to this FORUM.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

First of all I'd like to apologize for my post which "...only raises more questions - it doesn't settle the question."

One way of determining how old those cards were when they were turned in to the FBI is to "research" some of the other people who were also listed, with their age, on those cards, and by reading their obituary (or whatever), find out when they were born and then do some reverse math to figure out when their card was written. Obviously finding the correct obituary, etc of a person with an-at-least somewhat unusual name is much easier that finding the correct obituary (or whatever) for a "John Smith," for example.

I've only just started doing this but I've already found the obituary for someone who is also listed on page 60 of the HSCA report-- a William Henry Halgren who, according to his card, was 42 years old and living in St Paul, Minnesota when his card was written. According to his obituary, he was born on 9/25/21, meaning that he turned 42 on 9/25/63, meaning that William Henry Halgren's card was written between 9/25/63 and 9/25/64. (Scroll all the way down to the "death records" part to see that this William Henry Halgren died on 11/15/2005 at the age of 84 in St Paul, Minnesota.)

http://www.locategra...am-H-Halgren-MN

Time permitting, I'll "research" some of the other people on these cards who also have (at least somewhat) unusual names.

Best regards,

--Tommy

Edited December 20, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

First of all I'd like to apologize for my post which "...only raises more questions - it doesn't settle the question."

One way of determining how old those cards were when they were turned in to the FBI is to "research" some of the other people who were also listed, with their age, on those cards, and, by reading their obituary (or whatever), find out when they were born, and then doing some reverse math to figure out when their card was written. Obviously finding the correct obituary, etc of a person with an-at-least somewhat unusual name is much easier that finding the correct obituary (or whatever) for a "John Smith," for example. I've only just started doing this but I've already found the obituary for someone who is also listed on page 60 of the HSCA report-- a William Henry Halgren who according to his card was 42 years old and living in St Paul, Minnesota when his card was written. According to his obituary, he was born on 9/25/21, meaning that he turned 42 on 9/25/63, meaning that William Henry Halgren's card was written between 9/25/63 and 9/25/64. http://www.locategra...am-H-Halgren-MN

Time permitting, I'll "research" some of the other people on these cards who also have (at least somewhat) unusual names.

Best regards,

--Tommy

Tommy, I'm very interested in your research here, and am eager to see your results. Yet I should also point out a fear voiced by Gary Schoener earelier this year, namely, that the FBI, if they chose, might pinpoint some information about one specific person and alter it so that researchers would fly off on wild goose chases.

Gary did not say this happened in the case of Jack Martin -- but he did raise the notion. That said -- I am eager to see what your procedure reveals.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul,

First of all I'd like to apologize for my post which "...only raises more questions - it doesn't settle the question."

One way of determining how old those cards were when they were turned in to the FBI is to "research" some of the other people who were also listed, with their age, on those cards, and, by reading their obituary (or whatever), find out when they were born, and then doing some reverse math to figure out when their card was written. Obviously finding the correct obituary, etc of a person with an-at-least somewhat unusual name is much easier that finding the correct obituary (or whatever) for a "John Smith," for example. I've only just started doing this but I've already found the obituary for someone who is also listed on page 60 of the HSCA report-- a William Henry Halgren who according to his card was 42 years old and living in St Paul, Minnesota when his card was written. According to his obituary, he was born on 9/25/21, meaning that he turned 42 on 9/25/63, meaning that William Henry Halgren's card was written between 9/25/63 and 9/25/64. http://www.locategra...am-H-Halgren-MN

Time permitting, I'll "research" some of the other people on these cards who also have (at least somewhat) unusual names.

Best regards,

--Tommy

Tommy, I'm very interested in your research here, and am eager to see your results. Yet I should also point out a fear voiced by Gary Schoener earlier this year, namely, that the FBI, if they chose, might pinpoint some information about one specific person and alter it so that researchers would fly off on wild goose chases.

Gary did not say this happened in the case of Jack Martin -- but he did raise the notion. That said -- I am eager to see what your procedure reveals.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

While looking at just the first 14 pages of the HSCA document, I realized that there some original entries on the Minuteman index cards that date from as recently as early and mid 1965. For example:

"Smith, R.A. ... Fresno, CA ... 1-1965 received work phase 2 - sending 3."

and: "Smith, Russell B. ... Fresno, CA ... July 1965 10.00 gift"

http://www.maryferre...29&relPageId=12

and: "(continued) Smith, Russell Bernard ... Fresno, CA ... 2/23/65 - $3 for Jan & Feb dues ..."

and: "Zytner, Mark ... Hacienda Heights, CA ... Feb 24, 1965 - Phase 1 $3.00 (dues & TP)"

etc.

Not to mention lots of dates in 1964, somewhat fewer in 1963, and even a few in 1962.

FWIW,

--Tommy

P.S. Are you going to argue now that, although the info on the cards is as recent as (at least) July, 1965 (thereby making "17-year-old John T. Martin" only 15 years old in 1963), the FBI or somebody must have changed his age on his card? In other words, that his card should say that he was a twenty-five year-old high school student in 1965? I noticed that whoever wrote the cards made a distinction between a member who was a "student" and a member who was a "college student." John T. Martin's card says he was a "student."

If John T. Martin was 15 in 1963, he would have been a 20-year old university student when Weisberg and Schoener met him at the University of Minnesota in 1968. As you know, twenty is a typical age for a university student, but not twenty-eight.

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but I am sorry that this post raises more questions than answers...

Edited December 21, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

While looking at just the first 14 pages of the HSCA document, I realized that there some original entries on the Minuteman index cards that date from as recently as early and mid 1965. For example:

"Smith, R.A. ... Fresno, CA ... 1-1965 received work phase 2 - sending 3."

and: "Smith, Russell B. ... Fresno, CA ... July 1965 10.00 gift"

http://www.maryferre...29&relPageId=12

and: "(continued) Smith, Russell Bernard ... Fresno, CA ... 2/23/65 - $3 for Jan & Feb dues ..."

and: "Zytner, Mark ... Hacienda Heights, CA ... Feb 24, 1965 - Phase 1 $3.00 (dues & TP)"

etc.

Not to mention lots of dates in 1964, somewhat fewer in 1963, and even a few in 1962.

FWIW,

--Tommy

P.S. Are you going to argue now that, although the info on the cards is as recent as (at least) July, 1965 (thereby making "17-year-old John T. Martin" only 15 years old in 1963), the FBI or somebody must have changed his age on his card? In other words, that his card should say that he was a twenty-five year-old high school student in 1965? I noticed that whoever wrote the cards made a distinction between a member who was a "student" and a member who was a "college student." John T. Martin's card says he was a "student."

If John T. Martin was 15 in 1963, he would have been a 20-year old university student when Weisberg and Schoener met him at the University of Minnesota in 1968. As you know, twenty is a typical age for a university student, but not twenty-eight.

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but I am sorry that this post raises more questions than answers...

Tommy, I appreciate your diligence in reviewing this interesting material about Jack T. Martin. Also, I appreciate your patience and courtesy, even when I sometimes become excitable.

I'm not yet accusing the FBI of altering data -- I only repeated that Gary Schoener said to beware of this possibility. So I will keep an open mind.

So let's look at the entries more closely. The FBI report says that these cards were delivered on 10 December 1965. Then it gives the entries for hundreds of Minutemen (MM) members. But there is a lack of consistency in the record-keeping. For example, the age of the member is usually recorded, but sometimes it isn't recorded. Usually an occupation, hobbies, a phone number or dues are recorded, yet sometimes they aren't recorded. Here's the entry for John Martin:

MARTIN, JOHN T. 29602

1752 Iglehart Apt. 4

St. Paul 4, Minnesota

Phone:

Sex: M, Age: 17, Occupation: student

Hobbies and skills: music, coin collecting, chess, microscopy

Activity:

Material:

Dues:

We notice immediately that the dues are not recorded. Therefore, we have no evidence that this entry was made on a given date. That's point number one.

That is, just because the entry was handed to the FBI in 1965, there is no guarantee that this card was written in 1965. It might have been written in 1960, and only handed to the FBI in 1965.

Since Harold Weisberg and Gary Schoener both met this man in 1968, they got a good look. Gary Schoener was in his mid-20's, and he remembers that John T. Martin was *older* than himself. He told me Martin appeared to be in his "late twenties or early thirties." Those are Schoener's own words. (I give eye-witness evidence more weight than paperwork evidence.)

Other scenarios are also possible:

(1) The FBI was mistaken when they told Weisberg and Schoener to contact the owner of the Jack Martin Film at this address. This MM entry cannot identify the same John Martin, because this John Martin was much too young to match the description given by Weisberg and Schoener, i.e. a man who served in the US Army in 1961-1962. A boy of 17 in 1965 could never match that description.

(2) The FBI deiberately mixed up this Jack Martin with the correct Jack Martin from St. Paul, Minnesota, in order to make life difficult for Weisberg and Schoener.

(3) The MM clerk who made this card for John T. Martin accidently typed the number 17 instead of the number 27.

Perhaps somebody can think of other plausible explanations.

However, my preferred explanation is that the MM clerk who made this card for John T. Martin copied the information from an older record -- perhaps a record originally created in 1960. The fact that no date is given for dues in this record, and that there is no record of any dues paid at all, should make us hestitate to conclude that this entry must have been originally typed in 1965.

In other words, my conclusion is that we researchers are in error -- we have jumped to the conclusion that just because these records were handed to the FBI in 1965, and they listed Jack Martin as 17 years old, that this must mean that Martin must have been 17 in 1965. That is an assumption, and there is no conclusive evidence for that assumption.

Jack Martin's birthdate is withheld. Even the date of his most recent dues payment is withheld. We have no other dates to work with except the date that the records were handed to the FBI -- and that is insufficient information.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 22, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

I think Paul that your inferences about Martin's age are logical. I also think that the fact that Weisberg and Schoener paid little attention to the first part of the film taken at Walker's home lends credence to their whole story, which is given extra historical context by the fact that Weisberg was looking for New Orleans connections, as was Garrison and everyone else. It is astounding how little attention was paid to the very real possibility that it was Walker who was, with some help, the action officer in charge of the plot.

Paul - in your research have you come across any real connections between Walker and the hawks among the Joint Chiefs like LeMay?

[Paul Trejo]

I think Paul that your inferences about Martin's age are logical. I also think that the fact that Weisberg and Schoener paid little attention to the first part of the film taken at Walker's home lends credence to their whole story, which is given extra historical context by the fact that Weisberg was looking for New Orleans connections, as was Garrison and everyone else. It is astounding how little attention was paid to the very real possibility that it was Walker who was, with some help, the action officer in charge of the plot.

Paul - in your research have you come across any real connections between Walker and the hawks among the Joint Chiefs like LeMay?

Great question, Paul B. I don't have any information yet about ex-General Walker's continuing connections with the Pentagon. I would be astonished if he had none at all.

Yet, my strategy is, before dragging the Pentagon into this mess, to first and foremostly establish that Walker was the central figure-head of the Dallas ground-crew of the JFK plot.

Once I establish that theory with scholarly rigor, my next target will be the next higher circle of influence, and that would be rogue elements in the Pentagon. In that case, my first target would be General Edward Lansdale, who was the senior officer of Fletcher Prouty, and who sent Prouty to the South Pole so that he would be unavailable to do his regular security duties in Dallas on 22 November 1963.

Everybody will recognize that this theory comes from the Oliver Stone movie, JFK, when "Mr. X" (who was played by Donald Sutherland) claimed that he was sent to the South Pole by "General Y", Now that we know that "Mr. X" was really Fletcher Prouty, we can surmise that "General Y" was actually his superior officer, General Edward Lansdale.

I am intrigued by the persistent rumors of sightings of Lansdale in Dallas on 22 November 1963 -- but I hesitate to rush into blaming the Pentagon broadly for the JFK assassination. Our Generals are honorable men -- and one of the many facts that makes ex-General Walker a suspect, IMHO, is that he is the only US General who resigned from the US Army in the entire 20th century. That is uncharacteristic of the honor of our Generals.

General Lansdale is an honorable and respected figure for me, unless I find firm -- rock solid -- evidence otherwise. Rumor and innuendo (of the kind that convicted Lee Harvey Oswald) can never be allowed to stand in for logic and rigor. Facts are the key elements.

Now, we do have ex-General Walker in Dallas organizing the humiliation of UN Abassador Adlai Stevenson in Dallas on 24 October 1963 (almost exactly one month before the JFK hit) and broadly showing himself to be the leader and organizer of the extremist right in Dallas. We also have Walker's influence on the black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News and on the "Wanted for Treason" handbill of 22 November 1963. There is plenty of smoke here.

On the other hand, we have the testimony of Fletcher Prouty that General Lansdale maneuvered to prevent Prouty from establishing tight security in Dallas on 22 November 1963. So I would expect to find some connection -- no matter how thin, but something material -- to connect the Pentagon plot with the Dallas plot. It is only a theory, but I truly expect to find some connection in the foreseeable future.

Yet, to answer your question, I've got nothing so far.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited December 23, 2012 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

Paul Trejo wrote:

[...]

"Jack Martin knew Walker well enough to learn that Lee Harvey Oswald would be in New Orleans, in front of the Trade Mart on 9 August 1963, handing out these leaflets and getting arrested for causing a commotion."

[...]

[emphasis added by T. Graves]

Wrong, Trejo. But don't feel bad. Lots of researchers and students of the assassination get this all screwed up.

Lee Harvey Oswald (along with Carlos Bringuier and Miguel Cruz and Celso Hernandez) was arrested in the 700 block of Canal Street on August 9, 1963.

On that date, Oswald, wearing a placard around his neck which said "Viva la Fidel" (according to amateur photographer Jim Doyle's eleven-year-old sister, Sharon), handed out leaflets along two blocks of Canal Street between the Maison Blance Building http://www.jfk-online.com/andrews02.html , at 901-921 Canal Street http://louisdl.louislibraries.org/cdm/ref/collection/CLF/id/1918 , and the 700 block of Canal Street, where Oswald "got into it" with Carlos Bringuier and the anti-Castro Cubans and was arrested. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2895.pdf ; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Martin%20John%20Minneapolis%20Film%20Enlargments/Item%2023.pdf

According to Martin Shackelford http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/MS/3pe.html , Oswald's arrest on 8/09/63 in the 700 block of Canal Street was captured on film by only two photographers, both amateurs and both young. One of them was James "Jim" Doyle. The "Oswald" part of Doyle's film is viewable from 3:50 to 4:05 in the video below.

FWIW, the Doyle "clip" shows the placard around Oswald's at 3:58 and again at 4:02 of this Black Op Radio video...

The other young, amateur photographer to capture Oswald's arrest in the 700 block of Canal Street on 8/09/63 was your John T. Martin, aka "Jack" Martin.

http://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/term@Home%20movie/6/title-desc;jsessionid=5DEFC9891B70CC9909BCC446E9E5E7AE?t:state:flow=48c4e7da-93f7-43cd-bceb-c6960c78dac1

The International Trade Mart was at # 2 Canal Street, six blocks farther down the street from where Oswald was arrested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_New_Orleans .

Oswald didn't do any leafleting at the International Trade Mart on August 9, 1963.

He didn't hand out leaflets there until August 16, 1963. http://books.google.com/books?id=scug_gAfL-wC&pg=PP136&lpg=PP136&dq=oswald+%22international+trade+mart%22+%22august+16%22&source=bl&ots=lYdxFZ7ogJ&sig=v4sRUMPNXpUmUNifaU5b3jvskF0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GbxqVJngCMb9iALzwIDIBw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=oswald%20%22international%20trade%20mart%22%20%22august%2016%22&f=false ; http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rush.htm .

That was four days after his 8/12/63 court appearance for the above-mentioned 8/09/63 arrest.

Although he was never arrested at the International Trade Mart, he was filmed by two TV stations while leafleting there on 8/16/63.

--Tommy

Edited November 18, 2014 by Thomas Graves