Did Clay Shaw Get the Help He Deserved?, Part One

[Benjamin Cole]

TG-

Verily, but if what KGB-stooge Bruce Solie was doing was in fact trying to steer investigators away from LHO, his asset..then that idea should be explored.

It is a bit fishy that a CIA "highly paid contract source"--Shaw--was ding-donging around with LHO.

Was LHO actually trying to penetrate a part of CIA, on Solie's instigation?

Could Solie use LHO to plant misinformation within CIA ranks?

Just thinking out loud...

[Tom Graves]

TG-

Verily, but if what KGB-stooge Bruce Solie was doing was in fact trying to steer investigators away from LHO, his asset..then that idea should be explored.

It is a bit fishy that a CIA "highly paid contract source"--Shaw--was ding-donging around with LHO.

Was LHO actually trying to penetrate a part of CIA, on Solie's instigation?

Could Solie use LHO to plant misinformation within CIA ranks?

Just thinking out loud...

1) What "investigators," and why would they be thinking about investigating Oswald in 1967, 1968, 1969?

2) You seem to be conspiracy minded to the max regarding the JFKA, be it the evil, evil CIA or the evil, evil, evil KGB. (Note the truly deserved extra "evil" for the latter.)

3) I believe you're over-thinking it.

4) Do you really believe Clay Shaw was "a highly paid CIA contract source"?

5) Do you really believe he was "ding-donging around with Oswald"?

[Fred Litwin]

There is no such thing has a highly paid contract source.

[Tom Graves]

There is no such thing has a highly paid contract source.

We know that, Fred.

(Or at least I do.)

[Benjamin Cole]

FL-

That is the term used by the CIA historian to describe Clay Shaw.

According to a declassified 1992 CIA document produced by the CIA's History Review Group, Clay Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" for the agency until 1956.

AFAIK, no one in the CIA has ever said that definition of Shaw was misleading, or in error.

If the CIA historian's description of Shaw is misleading, then the CIA should clarify it. That description of Shaw has been in the public record for 32 years, without correction.

If Bruce Solie was somehow involved in denting, or diverting the Garrison investigation into Shaw and LHO, I would like to know how.

Have you ever sought an official correction from the CIA, regarding their description of Shaw as a "highly paid contract source"?

If not, why not?

If so, what was the CIA response?

[Tom Graves]

FL-

That is the term used by the CIA historian to describe Clay Shaw.

According to a declassified 1992 CIA document produced by the CIA's History Review Group, Clay Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" for the agency until 1956.

AFAIK, no one in the CIA has ever said that definition of Shaw was misleading, or in error.

If the CIA historian's description of Shaw is misleading, then the CIA should clarify it. That description of Shaw has been in the public record for 32 years, without correction.

If Bruce Solie was somehow involved in denting, or diverting the Garrison investigation into Shaw and LHO, I would like to know how.

Have you ever sought an official correction from the CIA, regarding their description of Shaw as a "highly paid contract source"?

If not, why not?

If so, what was the CIA response?

Why would the CIA -- whose official position on Yuri Nosenko is that he was a true defector (LOL!) -- correct J. Kenneth McDonald's cobbled-together mischaracterization of Clay Shaw?

Factoid: Putative KGB staff officer Nosenko was "cleared" by Mole Solie in October 1968 via a bogus polygraph exam and a specious report.

All I know is that in 2021, renowned British JFKA researcher (and conspiracy theorist!!!) Malcolm Blunt said in that YouTube video you watched that Bruce Solie was "all over the Kennedy investigation and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."

Perhaps you can contact him through his colleague, Bart Kamp, at Kamp's "Prayer Man" website!

[Benjamin Cole]

If the official CIA definition of Clay Shaw, that he was a "highly paid confidential source," is in error, I would like the CIA to correct it.

In 32 years in the public record, the CIA has let that official description of Shaw stand. 

[Tom Graves]

If the official CIA definition of Clay Shaw, that he was a "highly paid confidential source," is in error, I would like the CIA to correct it.

In 32 years in the public record, the CIA has let that official description of Shaw stand.

Bummer, dude.

Why don't you look into it?

BTW, I was editing my previous post when you posted, so here it is in toto for you:

Why would the CIA -- whose official position on false defector-in-place-in-Geneva-in-June-1962 / false-or-rogue-physical-defector-to-the-U.S.-in-February-1964 Yuri Nosenko is that he was a true defector -- correct J. Kenneth McDonald's cobbled-together, typo-replete mischaracterization of Clay Shaw?

Factoid: Putative KGB staff officer Nosenko was "cleared" by Mole Solie in October 1968 via a bogus polygraph exam and a specious report, and the FBI still maintains that KGB Major Aleksei Kulak (J. Edgar Hoover's shielded-from-CIA FEDORA) was truly spying for the Bureau's NYC field office for fifteen years!

All I know is that in September of 2021, renowned British JFKA researcher (and conspiracy theorist!!!) Malcolm Blunt said in that YouTube video you watched that Bruce Solie was "all over the Kennedy investigation and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."

Perhaps you can contact him through his colleague, Bart Kamp, at the "Prayer Man" website!