On The Trail Of Delusion

[Jon Banks]

Jon,

Not to butt in, but I see both sides here. I appreciate that you recognize that Shaw was not in on a conspiracy to kill JFK. But Fred is also right. So far at least, no one has been able to find the document that the CIA historian referred to. I suspose it could be yet to be released but it appears that he was referring to a collection that is now available. And I have to assume that conspiracy-mined researches would have unearthed it by now if it existed. At this point, it appears to be an error by the historian, but I could be wrong.

If you can locate the declassified primary source document, feel free to share it. The Morley article that cited the HSCA summary of the CIA file on Shaw is from 2016. Maybe the document you're referring to was released in 2017's JFK file declassifications.
 
Also, not all government informants are paid and some are paid under the table. So we shouldn't assume that just because Shaw stopped being an 'on the books' informant in 1956 that his relationship with the CIA or other intelligence agencies ended that year.

Maybe Shaw did end all ties with the intelligence agencies in 1956 but I see no reason to assume that is what happened.

[Fred Litwin]

You can make all the assumptions you want. But without any evidence, they are just baseless allegations.

fred

[Jon Banks]

You can make all the assumptions you want. But without any evidence, they are just baseless allegations.

fred

Likewise, I'm still waiting for you to prove the HSCA was wrong about Shaw.

[Fred Litwin]

The HSCA wasn't wrong about Shaw. Blakey said quite clearly that Garrison was a fraud.

fred

[Jon Banks]

The HSCA wasn't wrong about Shaw. Blakey said quite clearly that Garrison was a fraud.

fred

So you're now saying the HSCA was right to call Shaw a "highly paid" CIA source?

That is no doubt an error. There is no such thing as a "contract source" You won't find that in other documents. The document that you cite is an overview of a set of documents given to the HSCA. There is no underlying document that supports that. The person probably meant a highly valued
contact.

fred

[W. Tracy Parnell]

So you're now saying the HSCA was right to call Shaw a "highly paid" CIA source?

The HSCA never said that. The "highly paid" business comes from J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian, in response to an HSCA request. What has never been seen is the documentation that caused McDonald to make this statement. It is my understanding that the collection (or box or whatever) that McDonald susposedly got this information from is available. But, so far, no one has produced such a document.

Now maybe someday it will come out that Shaw assisted the CIA beyond his Domestic Contacts interviews. I doubt it, but anything is possible. Until then, all we have is McDonald's statement. Of course, that is good enough for most CTs including the "journalist" Morley.

[Jon Banks]

The HSCA never said that. The "highly paid" business comes from J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian, in response to an HSCA request. What has never been seen is the documentation that caused McDonald to make this statement. It is my understanding that the collection (or box or whatever) that McDonald susposedly got this information from is available. But, so far, no one has produced such a document.

Now maybe someday it will come out that Shaw assisted the CIA beyond his Domestic Contacts interviews. I doubt it, but anything is possible. Until then, all we have is McDonald's statement. Of course, that is good enough for most CTs including the "journalist" Morley.

Assuming neither of you has seen the primary source documents, I don't understand how you can be so confident that McDonald was wrong.

What are you basing that conclusion on?