JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on February 07, 2025, 03:29:08 AM
-
Over the years, tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists have pounced on the fact that CIA's historian, J. Kenneth McDonald, characterized Clay Shaw as a "highly paid CIA contract source until 1956" in an 82-page 1992 memo titled "Survey of CIA's Records from House Select Committe on Assassinations Investigation."
Did he mean to say that Shaw was a "highly valued contact source," instead?
Was McDonald's report (on several people) cobbled together over a few years by people working under him? Is it possible that they really, really, really xxxxxx it up regarding Clay Shaw? (Rhymes with mucked)
What the heck is a "contract source," anyway?
Regardless, it's interesting to note that British researcher Malcolm Blunt said in a 2021 YouTube interview about "Yuri Nosenko and the JFK assassination" that probable KGB mole Bruce Solie in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security was "all over the Kennedy investigation" and "all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."
-
Over the years, tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists have pounced on the fact that CIA's historian, J. Kenneth McDonald, characterized Clay Shaw as a "highly paid CIA contract source until 1956" in an 82-page 1992 memo titled "Survey of CIA's Records from House Select Committe on Assassinations Investigation."
Did he mean to say that Shaw was a "highly valued contact source," instead?
Was McDonald's report (on several people) cobbled together over a few years by people working under him? Is it possible that they really, really, really xxxxxx it up regarding Clay Shaw? (Rhymes with mucked)
What the heck is a "contract source," anyway?
Hmm?
Regardless, it's interesting to note that British researcher Malcolm Blunt told Bart "The Xxxx" Kamp in a 2021 YouTube interview about "Yuri Nosenko and the JFK assassination" that probable KGB "mole" Bruce Solie in the CIA's mole-hunting Office of Security was "all over the Kennedy investigation" and "all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison."
Insofar as I know, that reference is the ONLY "evidence" that Shaw was a highly paid contract source. He does fit the profile of exactly the sort of person the CIA would be interested in debriefing after his various contacts and travels - nothing sinister, nothing particularly intelligence-oriented, nothing highly paid, nothing any patriotic American in Shaw's position wouldn't have been happy to do (and thousands did). This to me illustrates the game of conspiracy theorists, where a probable innocent error in some obscure document that is inconsistent with all the other evidence is magnified into huge smoking gun; put enough of them together and - voila! - you have a grand conspiracy.
-
Insofar as I know, that reference is the ONLY "evidence" that Shaw was a highly paid contract source. He does fit the profile of exactly the sort of person the CIA would be interested in debriefing after his various contacts and travels - nothing sinister, nothing particularly intelligence-oriented, nothing highly paid, nothing any patriotic American in Shaw's position wouldn't have been happy to do (and thousands did). This to me illustrates the game of conspiracy theorists, where a probable innocent error in some obscure document that is inconsistent with all the other evidence is magnified into huge smoking gun; put enough of them together and - voila! - you have a grand conspiracy.
You mean the way the LN-theorists play the game of putting questionable claims with non-evidence "behavior" together and - voila! - Oswald did it?
-
You mean the way the LN-theorists play the game of putting questionable claims with non-evidence "behavior" together and - voila! - Oswald did it?
Why do you think Oswald was innocent, Iacoletti?
Regardless, how many bad guys do you think (sic) were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up?
Couple hundred?
-
Why do you think Oswald was innocent, Iacoletti?
Regardless, how many bad guys do you think (sic) were involved altogether in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up.
Couple hundred?
I have observed that CTers like Jim DiEugenio are completely obsessed with the possibility that Oswald might have been found not guilty at trial. He constantly harps on supposed defects in the chain of evidence and that sort of thing. A not guilty verdict is at least a remote possibility - after all, OJ was found not guilty and every jury trial is a crap shoot. I have no idea why they think this equates to "innocence" or has any relevance to the verdict of history. The verdict of history, based on the totality of the best evidence and most reasonable inferences, is that Oswald killed JFK; all of the defense counsel posturing by the CT community is irrelevant to this verdict. If you want to overturn the verdict of history, you need better evidence and more reasonable inferences, not defense counsel nonsense.
-
Why do you think Oswald was innocent, Iacoletti?
I don't recall ever saying that I think that. Loaded question: why do you beat your wife?
You certainly haven't proven that he was guilty, though.
-
The verdict of history, based on the totality of the best evidence and most reasonable inferences, is that Oswald killed JFK;
If only saying that made it true...
-
If only saying that made it true...
It's a shame that you envision yourself some great defense attorney (John Abt?), Iacoletti, and that you're trying to defend the sharpshooting, psychologically disturbed, self-described Marxist known as Lee Harvey Oswald by "discrediting" piecemeal the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence arrayed against him.
Regarding the topic of this thread, do you think Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source from 1958 to 1956?
What's a "CIA contract source," anyway, John?
-
Just for self-amusement - or self-abusement, as the case may be - I spent a few minutes on this yesterday. McDonald's memo is indeed the only thing pointing to Shaw as a "highly paid contract source." What the CT community has done with this document reminds me of how some Christians take an obscure Bible verse and expand it into an entire branch of theology. The memo itself is odd. It's just a transmittal cover memo for a vast listing of documents. The Shaw reference seems almost gratuitous and sticks out like a sore thumb. You include that reference but don't steer the reader to where in the vast listing this information can be found? Just odd.
I also did a Google search for "contract source." I could find no references by any agency to an individual as a "contract source." I did, however, find numerous references in the intelligence context (not just CIA) to individuals as being a "contact source." This is apparently a fairly common term in intelligence operations.
Richard Helms did clarify the actual relationship between Shaw and the Domestic Contacts Division (or Service) in a 1979 libel case: "Under oath, he divulged the kernel of truth that the Agency and Shaw had struggled to keep secret when Garrison’s probe was at its height. Helms accurately described Shaw’s contact with the CIA from 1948 to 1956: at 'one time, as a businessman, (Shaw) was one of the part-time contacts of the Domestic Contact Division.'" The full article, by Max Holland in 2001, can be found at the CIA site and seems pretty authoritative, although I'm sure CTers disagree: https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Lie-That-Linked-CIA.pdf (no mention of the McDonald memo).
So now we're down to what McDonald meant by "highly paid." Lots of people thought lawyers were highly paid at my various offices, when in fact a reasonably successful car salesman made more. Highly paid is in the eye of the beholder.
-
So now we're down to what McDonald meant by "highly paid." Lots of people thought lawyers were highly paid at my various offices, when in fact a reasonably successful car salesman made more. Highly paid is in the eye of the beholder.
McDonald cobbled together the memo based on what previous CIA-employed researchers had written.
Imagine a game of "Chinese Whispers" where two of the original phrases in a nine-word sentence, "Clay Shaw was a highly valued CIA contact source," are "highly valued" and "contact source," but end up after several go-arounds as "highly paid" and "contract source."
-
I don't know why I keep wasting my time exposing conspiracy factoids, but the workings of the conspiracy-prone mind do have a weird sort of fascination ...
All over the internet and elsewhere, Clay Shaw is slandered as a LIAR!!! and PERJURER!!! He testified he'd never worked for the CIA but BY GOD HE DID!!!
How many of you know that Garrison's team NEVER MENTIONED the CIA angle? The issue was raised by SHAW'S OWN ATTORNEY, Dymond. Here is the ENTIRE exchange:
Q Mr. Shaw, have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?
A No, I have not.
There was NO follow-up on cross-examination by the prosecutor, Alcock. There could have been, of course, but there WASN'T.
Did Shaw perjure himself? In preparing a witness for deposition or trial, every lawyer emphasizes above all else to ANSWER ONLY THE QUESTION THAT IS ASKED, and to do so in the most straightforward manner possible. DO NOT VOLUNTEER ANYTHING. DO NOT EXPAND YOUR ANSWER.
In reading Shaw's entire testimony, I was struck by what a model witness he was, a trial lawyer's dream.
Did he "work for" the CIA. He certainly was not an employee. He was not an independent contractor. He was a domestic contact. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 7, 1973, Richard Helms stated about the Domestic Contact program, "There is no payment of money. There is no effort to twist anyone's arm. We simply are giving them an opportunity as patriotic Americans to say what they know." There were tens of thousands of domestic contacts.
Did Shaw testify truthfully? I would say so. Were the question and answer rehearsed? Of course. Was the question carefully worded? Absolutely. Did Shaw have any obligation to add, "No, but I did cooperate with the CIA's Domestic Contact Service as a domestic contact"? Hell, no. That was for the prosecutor to bring out on cross-examination if he so desired: "Did you ever have any relationship with the CIA?" or whatever.
Could Shaw have been successfully prosecuted for perjury? NOT IN A MILLION YEARS.
Of all the folks who have been maligned and defamed by CT loons, I put Ruth Paine and Clay Shaw at the very top of the list.
-
I should add that when Garrison indicted Shaw for perjury, he did not include Shaw's statement about not working for the CIA.
fred