On The Trail Of Delusion

[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?

[Fred Litwin]

He didn't write the report. An assistant wrote it. You can tell it's a mistake because the CIA doesn't use that terminology -
Contract source. The HSCA saw all those documents and no one one the HSCA said Shaw was anything other than a contact. And no one
has found a corroborating underlying document.

People make mistakes.

fred

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Donald Carpenter, in his biography on Shaw "Man of a Million Fragments", has this account, one that indicates (to me) that Shaw was more than a passive or reactive supplier of information to DCS. This indicates direction and a closer role between Shaw and the CIA.

 

[Jon Banks]

He didn't write the report. An assistant wrote it. You can tell it's a mistake because the CIA doesn't use that terminology -
Contract source. The HSCA saw all those documents and no one one the HSCA said Shaw was anything other than a contact. And no one
has found a corroborating underlying document.

People make mistakes.

fred

Is there a practical difference between a “high paid source” versus a “highly valued” source?

If a source is paid over the course of a few years, doesn’t that suggest the person is “valued”?

No one has “found” a corroborating document?

Isn’t that because his files are still secret?

The CIA allowed HSCA members to view the secret files but some of the files still haven’t been declassified…