JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The best evidence Ferrie and Clay Shaw were close acquaintences
Gerry Down:
Still must get through your book on Vietnam which i'm looking forward to as i've got a feeling it will contain some good info based on your debated discussions with Jim D on the Ed forum about a year ago.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Benjamin Cole on January 31, 2026, 02:38:25 AM ---GD--
Even Max Holland admitted that Shaw lied in court, regarding his role as a CIA asset.
I doubt Shaw was knowingly involved in the JFKA.
Was Shaw monitoring LHO in 1963, on behalf of Solie or someone else in the CIA? That seems like a legit question.
--- End quote ---
J. Kenneth McDonnald, the chief of the CIA's History Staff, said Shaw was a "contract source," which is more than just being a "domestic contact."
Anyway, FWIW, Lou Ivon, Garrison's chief investigator, said Ferrie told him that he had worked for the CIA, that Clay Shaw had used the alias Clay Betrand, that Shaw had been involved with the CIA, that Oswald had been in Guy Banister’s office many times, and that Oswald had been to the CIA-sponsored training camp near New Orleans where anti-Castro Cubans were trained. I have a hard time believing that Ivin simply fabricated all of this.
I am essentially agnostic about Clay Shaw's role in the assassination. I don't see how he fits into it, except just maybe as one of the funding sources. Fred Litwin's research has caused me to be skeptical about much of Garrison's case against Shaw.
I think David Ferrie probably knew some of the anti-Castro Cubans who were part of the plot, and I think he may have been aware of the basics of how the shooting would be carried out. It is not hard to imagine Ferrie blustering about how to kill JFK at a Clay Shaw party, given that Ferrie once publicly said JFK should be shot following the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Certainly, Ferrie's late-night trip to Houston on 11/22/63 through a severe rain storm smells to high heaven and has no credible innocent explanation. Ferrie said the trip was just for rest and relaxation to go goose hunting and roller skating. However, while at the skating rink in Houston, Ferrie spent his time on the telephone, according to rink owner Chuck Rolland.
At 11 p.m. on Saturday, Ferrie and his two young male companions arrived at the Driftwood Motel in Galveston, room 117. Phone records show that someone in Ferrie's room placed a collect call to the Town and Country Motel in New Orleans, which "just happened" to be Carlos Marcello's HQ in the city. My, my! Figure the odds!
None of these actions agree with Ferrie's tale that the trip was just for rest and relaxation to go goose hunting and roller skating.
According to Carlos Quiroga, a Cuban who had been involved with the CRC, Ferrie often provided Arcacha Smith with funds, stating, "Ferrie lent him (Arcacha Smith) money when he needed it for his family. . . . He (Ferrie) had $100 bills around all the time" (1 HSCA 112). Where did Ferrie get the money for all those loans, and how did he have $100 bills around "all the time"? In fact, Ferrie continued to loan and flash money even after he had lost his job with the airlines (1 HSCA 112).
The HSCA report noted,
An FBI report of April 1961 indicated Marcello offered Arcacha Smith a deal whereby Marcello would make a substantial donation to the movement in return for concessions in Cuba after Castro's overthrow. One explanation of Ferrie's ability to provide funds to Arcacha Smith may be that he acted as Marcello's financial conduit. (1 HSCA 112)
BTW, Oswald's former landlady in New Orleans, Mrs. Jesse Garner, told HSCA investigators that Ferrie visited her home shortly after the assassination and asked about Oswald's library card. Of course, the answer from WC defenders is that Mrs. Garner must have been "mistaken" or "fabricating."
Lance Payette:
Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.
The problem I have with all these types of discussions is that it's just regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over, ad nauseam. Virtually everything MTG posts is right out of one of his previous writings, to which he endlessly refers us. Unless it's just self-promotion, which I suspect it mostly is in the case of MTG and Jimbo and many others, what's the point? I assume that 99% of people who gravitate to a site such as this have a pretty fair base of knowledge about the JFKA, so what is the point of regurgitating "What about this?" and "What about that?" over and over and over as though the audience were junior high schoolers? And then those regurgitated points generate the same countervailing points that have likewise been regurgitated over and over and over. Is there some purpose in all this, or is it just self-promotion and mental masturbation? Every time I participate for any length of time, I start asking myself these questions and coming up with no better answer than mental masturbation (but at least I'm having fun with it!).
This was why I was excited to read Phantom Shot. It was something NEW! I hadn't heard it 974 times before. It was pretty persuasive and made me think. Ditto with John Orr's work. It's not just regurgitating the same tired talking points, and the same tired responses, for the 974th time.
Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.
Now, come on people: MTG's tedious posts or THIS? No contest.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI6dPeNjRWw
Gerry Down:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on June 12, 2026, 06:04:07 PM ---
Anyway, FWIW, Lou Ivon, Garrison's chief investigator, said Ferrie told him that he had worked for the CIA, that Clay Shaw had used the alias Clay Betrand, that Shaw had been involved with the CIA, that Oswald had been in Guy Banister’s office many times, and that Oswald had been to the CIA-sponsored training camp near New Orleans where anti-Castro Cubans were trained. I have a hard time believing that Ivin simply fabricated all of this.
--- End quote ---
I didn't realise Lou Ivon made this claim. Do you have a source for this?
It seems a bit fantastic that Ferrie would say these things because by saying these things Ferrie was in a way tying himself up with Oswald, as how else would Ferrie know these things?
And I thought Ferrie was trying to distance himself from LHO, not tie himself up with him.
Michael T. Griffith:
--- Quote from: Lance Payette on June 12, 2026, 07:11:08 PM ---Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.
The problem I have with all these types of discussions is that it's just regurgitating the same stuff over and over and over, ad nauseam. Virtually everything MTG posts is right out of one of his previous writings, to which he endlessly refers us. Unless it's just self-promotion, which I suspect it mostly is in the case of MTG and Jimbo and many others, what's the point? I assume that 99% of people who gravitate to a site such as this have a pretty fair base of knowledge about the JFKA, so what is the point of regurgitating "What about this?" and "What about that?" over and over and over as though the audience were junior high schoolers? And then those regurgitated points generate the same countervailing points that have likewise been regurgitated over and over and over. Is there some purpose in all this, or is it just self-promotion and mental masturbation? Every time I participate for any length of time, I start asking myself these questions and coming up with no better answer than mental masturbation (but at least I'm having fun with it!).
This was why I was excited to read Phantom Shot. It was something NEW! I hadn't heard it 974 times before. It was pretty persuasive and made me think. Ditto with John Orr's work. It's not just regurgitating the same tired talking points, and the same tired responses, for the 974th time.
Orest Pena, J. Kenneth McDonald, Clay Shaw, Polly wants a cracker, squawk squawk squawk.
Now, come on people: MTG's tedious posts or THIS? No contest.
--- End quote ---
You are unserious, a borderline troll. I notice that, yet again, you declined to address a single fact that I presented.
Of course, I don't blame you for not attempting to address the facts, since you've usually gotten your clock cleaned when you've done so.
Apparently I am living in your head, and rent free at that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version