Thomas Graves

Ray, Lovelady may have "let the cat out of the bag" here. But I gotta ask you two non-rhetorical questions. 1 ) Do you think Lovelady saw a girl on the first floor? 2 ) If so, who do you think that girl was? --Tommy

Richard, Let's say Adams and Styles started going downstairs from the 4th floor thirty seconds after the assassination. Would that have given Baker and Truly enough time to get to the 2nd floor lunchroom before Adams and Styles passed them on the stairs, given the fact that we know from Couch / Darnell that Baker was running towards the front steps about 20 seconds after the assassination? Thanks, --Tommy

bumped

Tom, I repeat my gratitude to everybody on this thread. I now know with certainty that the Jack Martin Film was not the product of Jack S. Martin Sr. who worked for Guy Banister.However, we still have a problem identifying this John T. Martin with the one described the Shackelford and Schoener. Today Gary Schoener sent me an email that objects to my idea that John T. Martin was a volunteer for General Edwin Walker. His email reads in part: > ...[John T.] Martin told us (i.e. Harold Weisberg and me) that he had > become a pacifist while serving under Walker in Germany, and that he > had left the service, barely able to get an honorable discharge. > He claimed to be done with the Birch Society and minutemen. > > Gary This presents a major problem of identification. Here again we have the claim that we heard from Martin Shackelford, that John T. Martin served under General Walker in Germany. But that is impossible if John T. Martin was 17 in August of 1963, because General Walker quit the Army in late November of 1961. Anybody can do this math. John T. Martin would have had to be 15 years old to serve under Walker in 1961; and he needed two yeras to get an honorable discharge from the Army, so he would have had to enlist at age 13. This is clearly ridiculous. Can we be talking about the same person? Can we be certain we are talking about the same Jack Martin Film? The only age that makes sense of the claims of Martin Shackelford (that John Martin served under General Walker) as well as the claims of John T. Martin himself (that he served under Walker in Germany when he became a pacifist) is an age 4-6 years older -- the estimate that Gary Schoener first gave us about the age of John T. Martin. Schoener said he was 24 in 1968 when he and Harold Weisberg met John T. Martin, and he had the impression that John Martin was older. He estimated about 4-6 years older than himself. Let us say four years older - so John T. Martin would have been 28 in 1968; so he was 21 in 1961 when Walker quit the Army; so he was 19 when he joined the Army. This means he was also 23 in the summer of 1963, when he flew to General Walker's house to film the bullet holes there, and then to NOLA to film Oswald getting arrested. The FBI records (and the Minuteman records) clearly state that John T. Martin was 17 years old in 1963. Still, it is unlikely that we are speaking about two different men, because the FBI gives the address of that man: FBI documentation shows Minutemen records from August, 1963, with the full identification as: Name: John T. Martin Address: 1752 Iglehart, Apt. 4, St. Paul, Minnesota Age: 17 FBI documents also advise Harold Weisberg that if he wants a copy of the Jack Martin Film, he must contact John T. Martin, personally, because the FBI no longer has a copy. They gave the address as 1752 Iglehart, Apt. 4, St. Paul, MN. This is the same name, the same middle initial, and the same address. The trouble is that they gave his age as 17, but he told you he served in Germany under General Walker (whose final year in the Army was 1961) -- so there is no way he could have been 17 in 1963. Impossible. Finally, insofar as John Martin claims that he served under General Walker, then he must have served before Walker quit in November, 1961. Yet we still have records of his Minuteman membership in August, 1963, complete with a dues payment (as I recall). So, this suggests that John T. Walker wasn't *yet* a pacifist in August, 1963. Rather, he must have become a pacifist between 1963 and 1968, when he met Weisberg and Schoener. This means that John T. Martin became a pacifist *after* August, 1963, when he paid the expense to *fly* to Dallas to film the bullet holes in General Walker's house -- most likely out of respect for this famous General. If I'm correct, then John T. Martin became a pacifist in late 1963 (at the earliest), and somehow scrambled his own time track and came to believe that he was a pacifist by 1961. (Or perhaps he was torn about the issue in 1961, never fully disconnecting from para-military groups until two years later.) Schoener wonders why a Minuteman would share his political movies with the FBI and journalists. What did he think the FBI would find there? What did he think the FBI (or the journalists) would seek there? I wonder whether John Martin explained how, socially, he came to visit Walker's home to take these pictures in the summer of 1963?. All I can say with certainty today is this -- it is impossible that he served under Walker in Germany during 1961 and was still 17 in 1963. Best regards, --Paul Trejo, MA FWIW, there is a John Timothy Martin living in Minnesota today. His mother's maiden name was Hypse, and he was born on November 9, 1943, making him 20 years old at the time of the assassination. He was 24 years old when Schoener met his "John T. Martin" in 1968. He is 72 now... Does anyone here have access to military records? Did the John Timothy Martin (DOB 11/09/1943; born in Fresno County, California) I found serve in the U.S. Army (24th Infantry Division) in Germany in the early 1960's? --Tommy

Paul, Ironically, I tried to send you a PM, but got this message: "The member Paul Brancanto cannot receive any new messages." FWIW, you can send me a message now... --Tommy

Paul, What you're saying works for me. Regardless -- I'm convinced I've spotted Morales while he was monitoring Oswald on August 9, 1963, in New Orleans. I base my conclusion on the photographic evidence in the Jim Doyle film, as well as what we already know about Morales, i.e. the fact that he had a light-colored index finger (as shown in a photo of Morales in Vietnam, below), the fact that he had a football player and track star's torso, the fact that he had a scar on his left eyebrow (as Garrison told Richard Billings the "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" had), the fact that in 1966 he was photographed wearing a suit and a shiny thin camera strap around his neck. We know that Morales was dark-complected. The word "Spanish" in Billing's phrase "Spanish Trace" signifies dark-complected, Well, guess what -- athletically-built and suit-wearing "Neck Scratcher" was dark-complected as I have shown on another thread. Regarding "Neck Scratcher's" suit? Garrison told Billings that "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" was wearing a coat and tie on August 9, 1963. And regarding the Morales' camera strap? We can see a shiny thin camera strap around "Neck Scratcher's" neck, and gosh, wouldn't you know Garrison told Billings that "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" was seen taking photographs of Oswald two blocks away (at the Maisson Blanc Building) that very same day... Question: Was "Neck Scratcher" really scratching his neck in the Jim Doyle film? Whatever it was that he was doing, it's good for us because it shows us his light-colored fingers in direct contrast with the dark color of his wrist and the back of his neck. The unusual light color of his index finger helps us to identify him as the otherwise dark-complected David Sanchez Morales. Too see "Neck Scratcher's" white index finger, click here: https://youtu.be/1y5pN3iOk70?t=235 Question: We know Morales could speak Spanish and English. Could he also speak "terrible, hardly recognizable Russian"? --Tommy edited and bumped PS Bear in mind that the above photo of Morales in Vietnam was taken sometime between 1969 and 1972 or 1973.

Tommy, I appreciate your diligence in reviewing this interesting material about Jack [sic] 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: [...] It looks like the mysterious John T. Martin (who not only filmed the bullet damage inside General Walker's house but also filmed Oswald's arrest on August 9, 1963) was renting an apartment in this 10-bedroom (6 unit) house in Saint Paul, Minnesota, when he joined the Minutemen. http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/1752-Iglehart-Ave-Apt-3_Saint-Paul_MN_55104_M77146-41495 Harold Weisberg's associate Gary Schoener met John T. Martin in 1968 and said he appeared to be in his mid-to-late 20's at that time. --Tommy

Wild guess -- He's good at "spinning" things? --Tommy

[...] deleted duplicate

Jeanie, Dark-complected and athletically-built (a football and track star in high school according to his buddy Ruben Carbajal) David Sanchez Morales is not visible in the Zapruder film to my knowledge. I do believe, however, that Morales was monitoring Oswald's leafleting activity in New Orleans on August 9, 1963, and was "captured" on film by 14-year-old Jim Doyle during the arrest-of-Oswald-incident. I think Morales is the guy who walks into the scene from the left, scratching his neck (to sneakily point out Oswald to a confederate, to try to hide the fact that he has a camera's strap around his neck?), and watches Oswald walk past him at 3:55 in this Black Op Radio video: .Interestingly, a Garrison investigator, Richard Billings, wrote about a coat-and-tie-wearing "Spanish (read: Hispanic-looking) Trace / Shepherd" whom Bringuier and his buddies noticed was monitoring and taking photos of Oswald that day. http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html I'm presently trying to determine if the historical David Sanchez Morales had an inch-long scar on or above his left eyebrow like Garrison told Billings the photo-taking "Shepherd" had. Edit: Yes he did. See the 45-degree scar above Morales' left eyebrow in the photo below. --Tommy Edit: Upon further close "freeze frame" viewing of "Neck Scratcher" in the Jim Doyle color film clip (around 3:55), I've come to realize that "Neck Scratcher" has a thin, brown, shiny leather camera strap (barely-visible) around his neck. Just like David Sanchez Morales did in this 1966 photo! ------ Bear in mind that according to Richard Billings, Garrison was told by witnesses Carlos Bringuier and Miguel Cruz that the "Shepherd" or "Spanish Trace" was taking photos of Oswald on Canal Street that day. Synopsis: Dark-complected "Neck Scratcher" had a camera with him while he was watching Oswald on August 9, 1963, just like Bringuier and Cruz said the dark-complected "Spanish Trace / Shepherd" had had with him that day. Garrison told one of his researchers, Richard Billings, that this dark-complected "Shepherd" had a one-inch scar on his left eyebrow. I have shown here and in earlier posts that David Sanchez Morales had a one-to-two-inch scar on his left eyebrow. In earlier posts I also showed that white-fingered "Neck Scratcher" was very dark complected. Question: Was David Sanchez Morales the dark-complected, suit-wearing man with the scarred left eyebrow who was seen watching and taking photos of Oswald on August 9, 1963? I believe that he was. Back by popular demand... David Sanchez Morales (tentatively identified herein as "The Neck Scratcher"). --Tommy

also bumped --Tommy

bumped --Tommy

Doesn't the stamp on the back of the money order in question already satisfy those conditions? It identifies the original payee, the bank it was deposited to, and the account number of the original payee. PAY TO THE ORDER OF The First National Bank of Chicago 50 91144 KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS, INC. Why would they need an additional stamp by the bank for the FRB to know where it came from? Hank, Excellent points, all. --Tommy

They should have, my first suspect would be what's his name Danny Acer, not sure if I got his name right, but I understand he was involved in anti-Castro activities, and there always needs to be someone from the inside to help those on the outside commit the crime, like Watergate or the Chilean Embassy there was an inside man. Someone needed to plant Oswald's gun, they had Oswald's rifle at the station, did anyone from the DPD show it to him and ask him if it was his? Did anyone question Oswald about the rifle they found and said now Lee we know you did it because we have your gun? Was Lee ever questioned about the gun other than photos taken of the gun by some police officer holding it up while walking down the hallway. Did Lee ever get to respond to any of these questions? If not, then he was pretty much set up. Oswald told them he didn't own a rifle. --Tommy Now, see, if it's true, I'd be concerned, because why would Marina admit to taking those backyard photos? Why would Marina and Ruth Paine say his rifle was wrapped up in some blanket, but then it's not there when they go to check, if Oswald didn't want nobody to know he owned a rifle, then he wouldn't have asked Marina to take photos of him. Also, how would Ruth Paine know there was a rifle wrapped up in a blanket in her garage? Could it be because she heard it from Marina, but never seen it, and did the lady where Oswald was staying at the boarding house ever see a rifle? If Oswald said he brought curtain rods to work, where are there? And, if the DPD said Oswald snuck his rifle by dismantling it, then how are they not able to find any evidence in that bag ever holding the gun? This is a very confusing case. Scott, I think Marina and the DeMohrenschildts lied about Oswald's having a rifle, Marina's taking backyard pictures of him with the Imperial Reflex, etc. I think Marina had a hard time telling the truth about things. She obviously lied when she said she locked Oswald inside the bathroom to keep him from going out and shooting Nixon. Bathroom doors aren't lockable from the outside. Maybe back in the U.S.S.R., but not here in the good old USA... I'm afraid she got "caught out" for the prevaricator that she was on that one. I guess the bad guys felt they needed to "prove" that Oswald held violent intentions against political figures, and Marina got stuck with having to promulgate that implausible "locked-inside-the-bathroom" story. Also, Robert Prudhomme (I believe) has pointed out that although Oswald didn't own a gun-cleaning kit, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD showed no signs of having been buried in the ground after Oswald had, according to Marina, taken a pot shot at General Walker, some seven months earlier, and buried it by some railroad tracks for a couple of days. --Tommy

They should have, my first suspect would be what's his name Danny Acer, not sure if I got his name right, but I understand he was involved in anti-Castro activities, and there always needs to be someone from the inside to help those on the outside commit the crime, like Watergate or the Chilean Embassy there was an inside man. Someone needed to plant Oswald's gun, they had Oswald's rifle at the station, did anyone from the DPD show it to him and ask him if it was his? Did anyone question Oswald about the rifle they found and said now Lee we know you did it because we have your gun? Was Lee ever questioned about the gun other than photos taken of the gun by some police officer holding it up while walking down the hallway. Did Lee ever get to respond to any of these questions? If not, then he was pretty much set up. Oswald told them he didn't own a rifle. --Tommy

Scott, So who do you think was behind the killing of JFK? Fidel Castro? --Tommy

Good stuff, Scott. Methodology is important. Have you been able to confirm, independently from your friends, that he lived there? According to that Spanish-language website, he was released from Cuban prison in 1978 and returned to the Miami area. Might be listed in an old phone book... --Tommy

No, Scott. Actually I'm more confused than ever. Is the mugshot that James provided to us the mugshot of one of the guys who killed JFK? James says the guy in the mugshot was 18 years old in 1963. --Tommy Tommy, Please open these document and read them. I don't know where James received the information that this person was 18 years old in 1963. I suppose if it is true, then that would have made him 21 in 1966 when he went to Cuba. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=86046&search=Saldivar#relPageId=3&tab=page Scott, Is the mugshot (which James posted on this thread) of the guy you're talking about, or not? If so, is this the first time you've seen a photo of him? --Tommy That is the first time I've ever seen this photo, I don't know what Eugenio looks like. I only have the address and phone number to where he stayed in Hialeah. His address has been confirmed by others who did know him. I did not show anyone in Miami that page out of my father's address book so no one would shut down on me, and after this post I know I will not be welcomed back to Miami. OK. Thanks, Scott! --Tommy

No, Scott. Actually I'm more confused than ever. Is the mugshot that James provided to us the mugshot of one of the guys who killed JFK? James says the guy in the mugshot was 18 years old in 1963. --Tommy Tommy, Please open these document and read them. I don't know where James received the information that this person was 18 years old in 1963. I suppose if it is true, then that would have made him 21 in 1966 when he went to Cuba. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=86046&search=Saldivar#relPageId=3&tab=page Scott, Is the mugshot (which James posted on this thread) of the guy you're talking about, or not? If so, is this the first time you've seen a photo of him? --Tommy

No, Scott. Actually I'm more confused than ever. Is the mugshot that James provided to us a mugshot of one of the guys who killed JFK? James says the guy in the mugshot was 18 years old in 1963. --Tommy

Scott, Thanks. The problem is, the document you provided doesn't talk about "Xinques," it talks about "Cadenas." The mugshot that James has shown us is of Eugenio Zalvidar Cadenas, which leads me to believe that it was Eugenio Zalvidar (or Salvidar?) Cadenas who was captured with Tony Cuesta in May, 1966. --Tommy

James, Have you ever heard of Xinques? --Tommy

James, Thanks for the mugshot and the DOB. I wonder why the newspaper article says Eugenio Saldivar Xinques? https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19660531&id=YKwrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=S_0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3291,3225666&hl=en Is there a date on that mugshot? Thanks, --Tommy PS Your Eugenio Enrique Zaldivar Cardenas is mentioned in this book by Lamar Waldron as having been arrested with Tony Cuesta on that raid. https://books.google.com/books?id=K9I0ApnA4QwC&pg=PA752&lpg=PA752&dq=%22zaldivar+cardenas%22&source=bl&ots=kL7ZZCT6TP&sig=Yt-1Iw7WOucUm0jve26c0nsDCHQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJxLX_66zJAhXGSiYKHbJHCMEQ6AEIQDAH#v=onepage&q=%22zaldivar%20cardenas%22&f=false

Scott, I don't doubt that his name was Eugenio Saldivar Xinques. Just like that newspaper article had it. Thanks for posting the page from your father's address book. But I must say it looks like it says "Eusenio" at the top. (I guess he mis-spelled Dallas as "Dalles." Too bad it doesn't say Dulles!) --Tommy I'm not into all that conspiracy stuff, making up stories, or Oswald acted alone. I am only into the truth, and what happened to my father. I know what my father is saying, I know what he told me, I know that the word Dallas is Dallas in his address book, and I know that Eusenio is Eugenio in my father's address book, that is Eugenio Saldivar's address 1031 W 27St. Hialeah Florida Scott, Thanks for clarifying that. --Tommy PS What "conspiracy stuff"? All I did was point out that the name "Eusenio" is written in your dad's address book, and that he apparently mis-spelled "Dallas" as "Dalles."

Scott, I don't doubt that his name was Eugenio Saldivar Xinques. Just like that newspaper article had it. Thanks for posting the page from your father's address book. But I must say it looks like it says "Eusenio" at the top. (I guess he mis-spelled Dallas as "Dalles." Too bad it doesn't say Dulles!) --Tommy