New Book!

[James DiEugenio]

My only question is: how did it get into those 12 libraries?

 

I guess they did not read my annotated two part, review.

 

Nice to have you back Ernie.  Someone who actually does original research.

Edited March 22, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

With increasing frequency threads are getting bogged down in an effort to clean up after Paul Trejo's claims. If it is not inappropriate or against the rules, or perhaps with Mr. Trejo's blessing (because indeed he often proves to be a "big" person and does not hold a grudge),  a Trejo thread should be opened so that the subjects that derail and bog-down other threads can be persued there. He does seem to enjoy attention, positive or negative.

Just a thought.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ernie Lazar]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

My only question is: how did it get into those 12 libraries?

 

I guess they did not read my annotated two part, review.

 

Nice to have you back Ernie.  Someone who actually does original research.

Well -- Jim -- I suspect some of those copies were donated.  One copy is not technically at a library but is in the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

The others are located below.  You will notice some of the world-famous research centers which decided to purchase a copy.

Location	Library
US,AZ	PHOENIX PUB LIBR
US,DC	LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
US,KY	HENDERSON CNTY PUB LIBR DIST
US,LA	NORTHWESTERN STATE UNIV OF LOUISIANA
US,MN	HENNEPIN CNTY LIBR
US,MT	MONTANA STATE UNIV, NORTHERN
US,NY	ROCHESTER PUB LIBR
US,OH	STARK CNTY DIST LIBR
US,TN	UNIV OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
US,TX	BAYLOR UNIV
US,TX	UNIV OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
CA,BC	VANCOUVER PUB LIBR

Edited March 22, 2017 by Ernie Lazar

[James DiEugenio]

I guess PT will say something like, "Columbus started small too.  Just three ships."

[Ernie Lazar]

9 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

With increasing frequency threads are getting bogged down in an effort to clean up after Paul Trejo's claims. If it is not inappropriate or against the rules, or perhaps with Mr. Trejo's blessing (because indeed he often proves to be a "big" person and does not hold a grudge),  a Trejo thread should be opened so that the subjects that derail and bog-down other threads can be persued there. He does seem to enjoy attention, positive or negative.

Just a thought.

The current count of Trejo's comments on EF is 4737.  Not sure how one opens a single thread to address all of that?

[Paul Trejo]

Ernie,

According to your "analytical skills," the correctness of a theory is gauged according to how many or how few Libraries have purchased a book extolling that theory -- within its second year of publication.

Hmm.

The truth is that JFK Conspiracy Theories tend to be unpopular in Universities.  This does not prove that one of them might not be correct -- only that they are UNPOPULAR.

First, any CT questions the US Government.   Secondly, some CT's are profoundly stupid (IMHO) e.g. the "Harvey and Lee" series of CIA-did-it books.   Thirdly, some CT's are profoundly hostile to the US Government, and even accuse LBJ of killing JFK, and other horrible accusations.

Some CTers are looney as loons, i.e. Looney Tunes.  

I myself have studied the Warren Commission documents under the well-known historian, Professor H.W. Brands.  This great scholar explained things to me like this:  a historian reports history -- never rumors and never political bias.  Objectivity is the ideal in history. 

For scholars like H.W. Brands, no hot topic less than 50 years old is likely to be included in objective history, because there are too many partisan politics involved.

Now, the Warren Commission volumes are now 53 years old, so technically a historian might consider them.  Yet, because of the firestorm of CT literature that continues to appear about it, making contemporary controversy, only a few professors are willing to consider them.  Professor Walt Brown is one.  Professor David Lifton is another.  There are others.

Yet even their opinions will differ -- so the era of objective history is still lacking when it comes to the JFK assassination.  H.W. Brands refuses to take a position until more of the dust settles. 

Officially -- the Warren Commission has one conclusion, and the HSCA has a second conclusion.  The era of objective history has not yet dawned on the JFK assassination.

I know historical method, and I have studied History in Universities since the 1980's, so I know the criteria.  Yet I am not interested in waiting around for the JFK Record Act to be fulfilled -- the JFK Assassination is one of the most interesting murder mysteries of any literature.

I'm enthused about the Walker-did-it CT, because I have also examined the 90 boxes of Walker's personal papers stored at UT Austin.  The evidence is clear, IMHO, and I have been trying to share this with the world since 2011.

I was finally able to interest Gary Mack (6th Floor Museum) in my CT in the year before he died, sadly.

I have taken a scholastic approach to these studies.  Like Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also value the information provided by Harry Dean.  We both believe some of what Harry Dean has said.  We both believe that Harry Dean has made political mistakes in his evaluation of the events.  But what is most interesting is Harry Dean's eye-witness of General Walker in 1963. 

Harry's information frankly tallies with reason, logic with the objective historical data that we have observed in the personal papers of General Walker.  For his part, Jeff Caufield has seen more than I have -- having the resources to travel around the USA to find caches of personal papers of General Walker at multiple Universities.

The research into the role of General Walker in the JFK assassination is something new.   It is fresh and vibrant. 

It was ignored in the 20th century.  Even most CTers reject it, because it was not included in the writings of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden or Anthony Summers.

Furthermore, General Walker was not called to testify for the HSCA.  That means General Walker was also absent from the writings of giants like Gaeton Fonzi, Robert Blakey, James Fetzer, Max Holland and so many others.

So, Ernie -- even University opinion about JFK CTs today is still in flux.  Also, most CTers have never even heard of a Walker-did-it CT, unless they have been regulars on this FORUM.

So -- your "analytical skills" have let you down again, Ernie.   You should probably go back to the drawing board.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

My only question is: how did it get into those 12 libraries?

I guess they did not read my annotated two part, review.

Nice to have you back Ernie.  Someone who actually does original research.

James,

I have read your biased review of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Your bias shows in every paragraph.   Dr. Caufield's new book cancels your CIA-did-it theory -- and that's why you made this rush, hatchet job on his brilliant work. 

You missed the main points of his narrative, and you challenged baby points here and there.   What a waste of time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I guess PT will say something like, "Columbus started small too.  Just three ships."

I just noticed something interesting when I reviewed the website for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

http://www.jfk.org/the-collections/reading-room/

They have archived literally hundreds of oral interviews with every conceivable person who has any sort of recollections about or any kind of personal knowledge re: the assassination.  As their website points out:

"Oral histories are stories and personal memories. The Museum actively collects oral histories about the life, death and legacy of President Kennedy, the culture of the 1960s and the history of Dallas. All oral histories are recorded and archived for preservation in the permanent collection."

Interestingly, Harry Dean is NOT one of the persons who has an oral history archived at the Sixth Floor Museum.  Nor is Jeffrey Caufield.  Nor is Paul Trejo.

So we have this interesting situation where a non-profit institution which exists solely to memorialize everything significant about the JFK murder does not apparently even consider comments or writings, or research done by Harry, Paul, or Jeffrey to be of any significance.

Other than Education Forum, there are only a very small number of message boards which contain any references to Harry Dean -- and most of them are just one or two sentences.

[Paul Trejo]

6 minutes ago, Ernie Lazar said:

I just noticed something interesting when I reviewed the website for the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza.

http://www.jfk.org/the-collections/reading-room/

They have archived literally hundreds of oral interviews with every conceivable person who has any sort of recollections about or any kind of personal knowledge re: the assassination.  As their website points out:

"Oral histories are stories and personal memories. The Museum actively collects oral histories about the life, death and legacy of President Kennedy, the culture of the 1960s and the history of Dallas. All oral histories are recorded and archived for preservation in the permanent collection."

Interestingly, Harry Dean is NOT one of the persons who has an oral history archived at the Sixth Floor Museum.  Nor is Jeffrey Caufield.  Nor is Paul Trejo.

So we have this interesting situation where a non-profit institution which exists solely to memorialize everything significant about the JFK murder does not apparently even consider comments or writings, or research done by Harry, Paul, or Jeffrey to be of any significance.

Other than Education Forum, there are only a very small number of message boards which contain any references to Harry Dean -- and most of them are just one or two sentences.

Ernie,

You jump to conclusions yet again, showing your bias.

Actually, Gary Mack was warming up to the Walker-did-it CT shortly before he died.  He worked with me, for example, as well as Gary Schoener, to finally post online to the Sixth Floor Museum web site the Jack Martin home movie showing both General Walker's shot-up home in Dallas, and Lee Harvey Oswald passing out FPCC leaflets on Canal Street in New Orleans -- in one and the same roll of film.

Gary Mack did this about one year before he died.

In addition, sometime after the Jack Martin film, Gary Mack asked me earnestly about all the photographs I had taken of the personal papers of General Walker.  We were in the midst of that dialog when he died.

The JFK CT's are very much in flux.   Only established, objective history has finally settled.  Give it TIME.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 22, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

14 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

According to your "analytical skills," the correctness of a theory is gauged according to how many or how few Libraries have purchased a book extolling that theory -- within its second year of publication.

Hmm.

The truth is that JFK Conspiracy Theories tend to be unpopular in Universities.  This does not prove that one of them might not be correct -- only that they are UNPOPULAR.

First, any CT questions the US Government.   Secondly, some CT's are profoundly stupid (IMHO) e.g. the "Harvey and Lee" series of CIA-did-it books.   Thirdly, some CT's are profoundly hostile to the US Government, and even accuse LBJ of killing JFK, and other horrible accusations.

Some CTers are looney as loons, i.e. Looney Tunes.  

I myself have studied the Warren Commission documents under the well-known historian, Professor H.W. Brands.  This great scholar explained things to me like this:  a historian reports history -- never rumors and never political bias.  Objectivity is the ideal in history. 

For scholars like H.W. Brands, no hot topic less than 50 years old is likely to be included in objective history, because there are too many partisan politics involved.

Now, the Warren Commission volumes are now 53 years old, so technically a historian might consider them.  Yet, because of the firestorm of CT literature that continues to appear about it, making contemporary controversy, only a few historians are willing to consider them.  Professor Walt Brown is one.  Professor David Lifton is another.  There are others.

Yet even their opinions will differ -- so the era of objective history is still lacking when it comes to the JFK assassination.  H.W. Brands refuses to take a position until more of the dust settles. 

Officially -- the Warren Commission has one conclusion, and the HSCA has a second conclusion.  The era of objective history has not yet dawned on the JFK assassination.

I know historical method, and I have studied History in Universities since the 1980's, so I know the criteria.  Yet I am not interested in waiting around for the JFK Record Act to be fulfilled -- the JFK Assassination is one of the most interesting murder mysteries of any literature.

I'm enthused about the Walker-did-it CT, because I have also examined the 90 boxes of Walker's personal papers stored at UT Austin.  The evidence is clear, IMHO, and I have been trying to share this with the world since 2011.

I was finally able to interest Gary Mack (6th Floor Museum) in my CT in the year before he died, sadly.

I have taken a scholastic approach to these studies.  Like Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also value the information provided by Harry Dean.  We both believe some of what Harry Dean has said.  We both believe that Harry Dean has made political mistakes in his evaluation of the events.  But what is most interesting is Harry Dean's eye-witness of General Walker in 1963. 

Harry's information frankly tallies with reason, logic with the objective historical data that we have observed in the personal papers of General Walker.  For his part, Jeff Caufield has seen more than I have -- having the resources to travel around the USA to find caches of personal papers of General Walker at multiple Universities.

The research into the role of General Walker in the JFK assassination is something new.   It is fresh and vibrant. 

It was ignored in the 20th century.  Even most CTers reject it, because it was not included in the writings of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden or Anthony Summers.

Furthermore, General Walker was not called to testify for the HSCA.  That means General Walker was also absent from the writings of giants like Gaeton Fonzi, Robert Blakey, James Fetzer, Max Holland and so many others.

So, Ernie -- even University opinion about JFK CTs today is still in flux.  Also, most CTers have never even heard of a Walker-did-it CT, unless they have been regulars on this FORUM.

So -- your "analytical skills" have let you down again, Ernie.   You should probably go back to the drawing board.

Thanks,
--Paul Trejo

PART ONE OF TWO-PART REPLY TO PAUL:

No, Paul, your entire first paragraph is based upon an entirely false predicate.  Typical of your defective reasoning!

Let me spell this out for you since you don't appear able to comprehend it by your own intellect.

1.   The "correctness of a theory" was NOT the subject of my message.  

Instead, my point was that EVERY intellectual dispute or debate in American history is memorialized in forums or venues which are accessible to ALL serious students of whatever matters are under scrutiny. 

2.  For example:  many of the most significant debates in modern American history (such as about McCarthyism) have been played out in the pages of publications such as the New York Review of Books, or New Republic magazine, or Commentary magazine, or in National Review magazine.  In addition" those debates have also been the subject of major articles published in academic journals published by the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, the American Sociological Association, (among other academic journals) AND in the book reviews sections of both academic and popular journals and periodicals.

3.  So -- how does an interested party find all that material?  

How does a SERIOUS student or scholar or researcher discover what the state of research is that informs such debates?  The answer (now) is through databases which are available at our public libraries (city, county, state) as well as available through our colleges and universities.   In previous decades (i.e. before internet), we relied upon print versions of various research resources.

4.  For illustration purposes, check out:

*  what the University of California (Berkeley) currently provides to its students and faculty here: http://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/az.php     OR

*  what the University of Texas (Dallas) currently provides to its students and faculty here:  https://www.utdallas.edu/library/resources/databases/index.php

5.  The world's libraries are the repositories of all human knowledge.  U.S. educational institutions are world-renowned for the breadth and depth of our nation's commitment to discovery of fact and truth.  Which is why tens of thousands of students leave their home countries and come HERE for their education.

6.  BUT:  all libraries include a lot of material which is totally false or bigoted or biased -- because the purpose of a library is to collect a good sample of all materials available.

7.  It is therefore extremely significant that so few libraries even bothered to acquire Dr. Caufield's book and MORE IMPORTANTLY -- it is VERY significant that scholars and researchers do NOT even discuss Harry Dean or Caufield in their articles, books, doctoral dissertations, master's theses, conference papers, speeches, or in any other format.

[Ernie Lazar]

38 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

According to your "analytical skills," the correctness of a theory is gauged according to how many or how few Libraries have purchased a book extolling that theory -- within its second year of publication.

Hmm.

The truth is that JFK Conspiracy Theories tend to be unpopular in Universities.  This does not prove that one of them might not be correct -- only that they are UNPOPULAR.

First, any CT questions the US Government.   Secondly, some CT's are profoundly stupid (IMHO) e.g. the "Harvey and Lee" series of CIA-did-it books.   Thirdly, some CT's are profoundly hostile to the US Government, and even accuse LBJ of killing JFK, and other horrible accusations.

Some CTers are looney as loons, i.e. Looney Tunes.  

I myself have studied the Warren Commission documents under the well-known historian, Professor H.W. Brands.  This great scholar explained things to me like this:  a historian reports history -- never rumors and never political bias.  Objectivity is the ideal in history. 

For scholars like H.W. Brands, no hot topic less than 50 years old is likely to be included in objective history, because there are too many partisan politics involved.

Now, the Warren Commission volumes are now 53 years old, so technically a historian might consider them.  Yet, because of the firestorm of CT literature that continues to appear about it, making contemporary controversy, only a few historians are willing to consider them.  Professor Walt Brown is one.  Professor David Lifton is another.  There are others.

Yet even their opinions will differ -- so the era of objective history is still lacking when it comes to the JFK assassination.  H.W. Brands refuses to take a position until more of the dust settles. 

Officially -- the Warren Commission has one conclusion, and the HSCA has a second conclusion.  The era of objective history has not yet dawned on the JFK assassination.

I know historical method, and I have studied History in Universities since the 1980's, so I know the criteria.  Yet I am not interested in waiting around for the JFK Record Act to be fulfilled -- the JFK Assassination is one of the most interesting murder mysteries of any literature.

I'm enthused about the Walker-did-it CT, because I have also examined the 90 boxes of Walker's personal papers stored at UT Austin.  The evidence is clear, IMHO, and I have been trying to share this with the world since 2011.

I was finally able to interest Gary Mack (6th Floor Museum) in my CT in the year before he died, sadly.

I have taken a scholastic approach to these studies.  Like Dr. Jeff Caufield, I also value the information provided by Harry Dean.  We both believe some of what Harry Dean has said.  We both believe that Harry Dean has made political mistakes in his evaluation of the events.  But what is most interesting is Harry Dean's eye-witness of General Walker in 1963. 

Harry's information frankly tallies with reason, logic with the objective historical data that we have observed in the personal papers of General Walker.  For his part, Jeff Caufield has seen more than I have -- having the resources to travel around the USA to find caches of personal papers of General Walker at multiple Universities.

The research into the role of General Walker in the JFK assassination is something new.   It is fresh and vibrant. 

It was ignored in the 20th century.  Even most CTers reject it, because it was not included in the writings of Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden or Anthony Summers.

Furthermore, General Walker was not called to testify for the HSCA.  That means General Walker was also absent from the writings of giants like Gaeton Fonzi, Robert Blakey, James Fetzer, Max Holland and so many others.

So, Ernie -- even University opinion about JFK CTs today is still in flux.  Also, most CTers have never even heard of a Walker-did-it CT, unless they have been regulars on this FORUM.

So -- your "analytical skills" have let you down again, Ernie.   You should probably go back to the drawing board.

Thanks,
--Paul Trejo

PART TWO OF REPLY TO PAUL:

1.  Now that we have corrected your false predicate -- let's proceed to your other absurdities.

2.  Conspiracy theories are not "unpopular" in our universities.  Another falsehood by you.   See for example the following:

* STANFORD UNIVERSITY:   https://web.stanford.edu/~jonahw/PWR1/Syllabus.html

* VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY:  http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/07/03/villanova-university-offers-course-on-conspiracy-theories/

* UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI:  https://generaleducation.missouri.edu/courses/791/

* UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS--Austin:  file:///C:/Users/ernie577/Downloads/UGS3022012963465%20(1).pdf 

If that last link does not work -- just google "conspiracy theory instructor Dr. Susan Marshall"  for a link to the syllabus she used in her conspiracy classes.

3.  Perhaps what Paul actually meant to write is that conspiracy theory TEXTBOOKS are difficult to find -- and that is partially accurate.

4.  Contrary to what Paul wrote -- CT's are NOT limited to the U.S. Government.  Many conspiracy classes at our colleges and universities focus upon many other types of conspiracies.  Those conspiracies involve corporations (such as tobacco and drug companies), our military, law enforcement officers, and many other defendants.

Although this probably would not have made the news in Texas -- Paul should look up newspaper coverage in the Los Angeles Times concerning the recent convictions of senior officials of the L.A. Sheriff's Department -- including the former Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca, who engaged in a conspiracy to thwart investigation of crimes committed within the Sheriff's Department.

"Baca, who ran the department for more than 15 years, retired in 2014 amid an FBI probe into misconduct and abuse by deputies in the county's jail system. So far, more than a dozen former sheriff's officials have been convicted as a result of the wide-ranging investigation, which began more than five years ago."

5.  With respect to Paul's comments regarding Caufield and Harry Dean -- as I have noted several times -- FICTION WRITERS can propose anything they want.  The problem confronted by NON-FICTION researchers and authors is that they must find VERIFIABLE FACTS to support whatever assertions or conclusions they make.  By that standard, neither Harry Dean or Jeffrey Caufield are credible sources -- except that in Caufield's case, he does mix indisputably factual history with totally unsubstantiated assertions -- as Jim diEugenio has documented in great detail.

[Ernie Lazar]

47 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

I have read your biased review of Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Your bias shows in every paragraph.   Dr. Caufield's new book cancels your CIA-did-it theory -- and that's why you made this rush, hatchet job on his brilliant work. 

You missed the main points of his narrative, and you challenged baby points here and there.   What a waste of time.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul Trejo's definition of "bias" --- Anything which disputes what Paul prefers to believe but which Paul cannot falsify.  Of course, Paul never thinks he exhibits any bias.

[Ernie Lazar]

44 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

You jump to conclusions yet again, showing your bias.

Actually, Gary Mack was warming up to the Walker-did-it CT shortly before he died.  He worked with me, for example, as well as Gary Schoener, to finally post online to the Sixth Floor Museum web site the Jack Martin home movie showing both General Walker's shot-up home in Dallas, and Lee Harvey Oswald passing out FPCC leaflets on Canal Street in New Orleans -- in one and the same roll of film.

Gary Mack did this about one year before he died.

In addition, sometime after the Jack Martin film, Gary Mack asked me earnestly about all the photographs I had taken of the personal papers of General Walker.  We were in the midst of that dialog when he died.

The JFK CT's are very much in flux.   Only established, objective history has finally settled.  Give it TIME.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- your comment does not address what I wrote.  Once again (as is your custom) you employ straw-man arguments.  A straw-man argument is a fallacy based upon giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.

My message simply pointed out that even that Museum does not include oral histories from you or Harry or Jeffrey -- AND -- even JFK-conspiracy message boards rarely discuss Harry Dean's assertions but when they do so, it usually is very limited (such as a few sentences) and, often, those message boards contain utter falsehoods which describe Harry as a former CIA or FBI intelligence agent and undercover operative!!   Why?  Because THAT is the impression Harry has perpetuated for over 50 years!

[James DiEugenio]

Jack Martin was a PI at Guy Banister's office.  I had no knowledge he shot any film dealing with the JFK case.

[Paul Trejo]

4 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jack Martin was a PI at Guy Banister's office.  I had no knowledge he shot any film dealing with the JFK case.

No, James, you have the wrong Jack Martin.

Jack S. Martin was the PI at Guy Banster's office.   The John T. Martin (aka, Jack Martin) that I speak of was cited by Martin Shackelford in his 1996 description of what he called, "The Jack Martin Film":   This was in Martin's long list of films that he used to sell over snail mail in the 1990's.   Here's his blurb:

• The Jack Martin Film (8-9-63) In another of those aforementioned ironic twists, a tourist named Jack Martin was in Dallas in August 1963. His film records his view from the airplane. Next, he visits General Edwin Walker, under whom he had served, allegedly target of an assassination attempt by Lee Oswald in April of that year. The film documents the scene of that attempt: the window through which the shot was fired, the bullet hole, and the wall from behind which it was most likely fired, ending with shots of Walker's flag and mailbox, and a nearby building under construction (allegedly also photographed by Oswald prior to the attempt!) . Then we see the entrance to a movie theater, cypress trees, a seal at the edge of a pool,and the statue of Andrew Jackson in Lafayette Park in New Orleans. Aroused by a commotion on Canal Street, Martin crossed to see what was happening, and began filming. We see Lee Oswald, leaflets in hand,standing on the sidewalk, being harangued by anti-Castro militants including Carlos Bringuier. Four police officers are seen arriving. The film ends with a view of the yellow leaflets scattered on the sidewalk after Bringuier knocked them out of Oswald's hands, and a brief aerial view of a subdivision. Parts of the film have only been used, to my knowledge, on the French television documentary, "Le Mystere Kennedy." The documentary is available on video, and frames from the film as well, from The Collector's Archives. A still from this film was finally published in Robert Groden's 1995 book, "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald," an essential photo archive on Oswald. (Martin Shackelford, 1996)

So, you see, James; it's an entirely different person -- probably 30 years younger than Jack S. Martin at 544 Camp Street in NOLA.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo