Important Disclosure about William King Harvey in Recently Released Document

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/morley-s-latest-william-harvey-nothingburger

[Fred Litwin]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-william-harvey-nothingburger-continued

Jefferson Morley's William Harvey Nothingburger, Continued

Morley's Substack puts forward a claim that an FAA administrator was not a real person. I provide proof that Charles Niles worked for the FAA.

[Benjamin Cole]

Give credit where credit is due.

Evidently, there is a Charles Niles of the FAA. Kudos to Litwin for bringing this out.

JFK Facts has been playing fast and loose lately, declaring everything a "bombshell," and dog-whistling "Mossad" on the JFKA.

Not a great look for the legitimate JFKA research community.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

[Tom Graves]

Give credit where credit is due.

Evidently, there is a Charles Niles of the FAA. Kudos to Litwin for bringing this out.

JFK Facts has been playing fast and loose lately, declaring everything a "bombshell," and dog-whistling "Mossad" on the JFKA.

Not a great look for the legitimate JFKA research community.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

What legitimate JFJA research community?

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

This may shock you, but I consider Fred Litwin a part of the "legitimate" JFKA research community (though I wish Litwin would give up, and just admit the CIA historian referred to Clay Shaw, in a heavily vetted document, as a "highly paid contract source" and that the description was not a mistake, and the CIA historian meant to say a "highly rated" contact source. Litwin had a Joan Mellen moment on that one).

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10337-10006.pdf

Sure, the definition of "legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder. I take it you regard WC research and conclusions as "legitimate." There are backers of the WC in the JFKA research community.

I consider myself legit, and I mostly back the HSCA findings.

But as I say, caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.

[Tom Graves]

I wish Litwin would give up and just admit the CIA historian [Kenneth J. McDonald] referred to Clay Shaw, in a heavily vetted document, as a "highly paid contract source" and that the description was not a mistake, and the CIA historian meant to say a "highly rated" contact source.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10337-10006.pdf

What, pray tell, is a "CIA contract source"?

Why not say contract agent, instead?

Shouldn't J. Kenneth McDonald have said, "Clay Shaw was a highly valued CIA contact source?"

Wouldn't that make more sense?

Regardless, what years did the 1992 report (which was cobbled together by McDonald's staff) say Shaw was a "highly paid CIA contract source"?

1948 to 1956, wasn't it?

Did you think evil, evil Shaw started planning the homosexual thrill-kill the CIA's assassination of JFK in 1956?

"McDonald's report was heavily vetted," you say?

LOL!

"Heavily vetted" by whom?

Answer: By incompetent J. Kenneth McDonald's incompetent staff.

[Benjamin Cole]

Evidently, Shaw was highly paid, and was not a CIA officer, but a source. That is what the CIA historian said, and in writing, and not in a memo, but an official report. This seems like a hard one to dodge.

I had the misfortune of working in a government office in the late 1979s, and anything in writing is scrutinized carefully, and I assume more so at the CIA.  One reason is that government offices are very political, and also do not have budget constraints and tight deadlines like the private sector.

The government agencies can and do copy-edit through layers and layers of officialdom.

In the private sector, there is a budget for a thin line of copy-editors, and the product has to get to press (old days).

If you look at the "masthead" of the CIA report, you see a lot of names.

I cannot prove the CIA historian was accurate in his description of Shaw. I would put high odds he was. That's kind of sensitive matter to get wrong.

But, as I say, caveat emptor,, and draw your own conclusions.

[Tom Graves]

Evidently, Shaw was highly paid, and was not a CIA officer, but a source. That is what the CIA historian said, and in writing, and not in a memo, but an official report. This seems like a hard one to dodge.

I had the misfortune of working in a government office in the late 1979s, and anything in writing is scrutinized carefully, and I assume more so at the CIA.  One reason is that government offices are very political, and also do not have budget constraints and tight deadlines like the private sector.

The government agencies can and do copy-edit through layers and layers of officialdom.

In the private sector, there is a budget for a thin line of copy-editors, and the product has to get to press (old days).

If you look at the "masthead" of the CIA report, you see a lot of names.

I cannot prove the CIA historian was accurate in his description of Shaw. I would put high odds he was. That's kind of sensitive matter to get wrong.

But, as I say, caveat emptor,, and draw your own conclusions.

"Evidently" my you-know-what.

Question:

Why is it that when one googles the words "CIA" and "Contract Source" simultaneously, all one gets is evil, evil, evil Clay Shaw?

Thank you in advance for your collegial reply.