JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on September 29, 2025, 03:08:30 PM
-
A newly released document provides an important disclosure about William King Harvey, the incendiary CIA officer who was known for his passionate hatred of the Kennedys.
Harvey took part in the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Fidel Castro. In Italy, he recommended using Mafia hitmen to kill certain Italian officials. In a dangerous act of insubordination, when the threat of nuclear war was a real possibility during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Harvey disobeyed White House orders and recklessly sent three commando teams into Cuba. The Kennedys were furious when they learned about this, and Harvey was quickly shuffled off to Italy.
Mark Wyatt, who served as Harvey’s deputy, told a French journalist in 1998 that he saw Harvey on a flight to Dallas in November 1963. Wyatt found this strange because Harvey was stationed in Italy at the time. Based on Harvey’s flight to Dallas in November 1963 and on comments that Harvey made to him about JFK’s death, Wyatt told his children that he believed Harvey either had advance knowledge of the assassination or was involved in it. Wyatt’s daughter urged him to testify to the HSCA, but he could not bring himself to do so because of his sense of loyalty to the CIA.
The newly released document reveals that the CIA requested the FAA to give Harvey an FAA travel credential. The credential would have enabled him to travel under a false name. I quote from the JFK Facts substack article on this disclosure:
One of the new documents was a letter from the CIA, dated April 10, 1963. A CIA official, Nicholas R. Zubon, addressed a one-page letter to Charles Niles at the Federal Aviation Agency (now the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA). Zubon requested that Niles arrange for FAA records to reflect that “HARVEY, WILLIAM K.” had been “issued Federal Aviation Agency Credential Number 4883, on 2 January 1963.”
The newly discovered document, a one-page letter released with redactions in 2017, reveals for the first time, Niles’ name and the role of the FAA. Both had been hidden from public view as recently as 2022 — for reasons of “national security.”
Marked “Confidential,” Zubon’s letter states that “in the event of an inquiry, this information may be released to verify the authenticity of this credential.”
The document about Harvey’s FAA credential reveals two new facts about his involvement in the events of 1963, neither known previously.
-- Harvey was authorized to travel undercover in the United States while he was serving as chief of the CIA station in Rome.
-- The CIA did not disclose this arrangement to Senate investigators in the 1970s.
Now why would Harvey, the CIA chief of station in Rome, Italy, need an FAA travel credential so he could safely travel undercover in the U.S.?
If for some reason Harvey had been challenged about flying under a different name, he could have said, "Hey, I'm authorized by the FAA to travel under a different name. You can check with the FAA and verify my travel credential."
The CIA still has not released Harvey's travel records.
-
MTG-
This makes no sense.
I do wonder why Harvey had issued to him "covert travel credentials" by the FAA back in the early 1960s. Back in those days anyone could board a commercial airplane flight with only a ticket. You could buy tickets for cash. Give any name you wanted.
I wonder what are, and why anyone would need, FAA "covert travel credentials." Was there such a thing?
AI Overview: There are no publicly known "FAA covert travel credentials" for CIA officers specifically, but in the 1960s, officers would likely have used forged passports and other identification documents from the State Department or created their own government-issued IDs for travel under their cover identities, a standard practice for intelligence agencies. While the FAA oversees U.S. aviation safety, it does not issue travel credentials for intelligence operations.
This whole topic is nutty. Harvey flying to Dallas sometime in November 1963 is hardly dispositive, and why any CIA officer using commercial aircraft would need "FAA covert travel credentials" (if there was such a thing) is doubly curious.
CIA officers would ask FAA bureaucrats for "covert travel credentials" ?
Maybe they asked the Interstate Commerce Commission for special Greyhound Bus badges too.
This sure is a funny one.
-
MTG-
This makes no sense.
I do wonder why Harvey had issued to him "covert travel credentials" by the FAA back in the early 1960s. Back in those days anyone could board a commercial airplane flight with only a ticket. You could buy tickets for cash. Give any name you wanted.
I wonder what are, and why anyone would need, FAA "covert travel credentials." Was there such a thing?
AI Overview: There are no publicly known "FAA covert travel credentials" for CIA officers specifically, but in the 1960s, officers would likely have used forged passports and other identification documents from the State Department or created their own government-issued IDs for travel under their cover identities, a standard practice for intelligence agencies. While the FAA oversees U.S. aviation safety, it does not issue travel credentials for intelligence operations.
This whole topic is nutty. Harvey flying to Dallas sometime in November 1963 is hardly dispositive, and why any CIA officer using commercial aircraft would need "FAA covert travel credentials" (if there was such a thing) is doubly curious.
CIA officers would ask FAA bureaucrats for "covert travel credentials" ?
Maybe they asked the Interstate Commerce Commission for special Greyhound Bus badges too.
This sure is a funny one.
One, the fact that the CIA requested the travel credential from the FAA is proven in the document.
Two, on the off chance that Harvey was detained or questioned about traveling under a false name, the FAA travel credential would have instantly cleared him.
Three, the CIA was not in the habit of asking other agencies for credentials for a named CIA officer unless it was for a good reason.
-
In 1963, Bill Harvey could have had an authentic US passport with whatever name he wanted.
This whole topic mystifies me.
The FAA, a civil agency, has no authority to arrest and detain people, and no authority to issue a credential that would prevent arrests by other law enforcement agencies.
No CIA officer would need any authority or credential from the FAA to travel incognito. This makes no sense. No ones ID was checked pre-boarding in the 1960s.
Morley calls this a "bombshell," but then maybe a chimerical molehill is a mountain.
-
I hate to burst Michael's and Morley's bubbles so quickly, but it took me about 15 seconds to determine that this was an authorization to carry a firearm.
See paragraphs 4 and 5 of the attached.
Jesus, you CTers are too easy. Give me something hard, willya?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R003100260070-5.pdf
-
LP--
I think you have added the likely explanation. Harvey, who was apparently an alcoholic nut, wanted to carry a firearm on a commercial airliner in the early 1960s.
A great story is the drunk Bill Harvey receiving the CIA Director John McCone, a very devout Catholic and a Knight of Malta, at his Rome apartment, and then drinking even more during McCone's visit. It went downhill from there.
I have mixed sentiments if LHO was ever a CIA asset. Larry Hancock and David Boylan say he was not.
But the CIA was not averse to having unstable kooks on the payroll (witness Harvey), or embedded in allied groups such as Alpha 66.
Who knows?
-
The complete absurdity here, folks, is that it took me literally 15 seconds to solve this mystery. Precisely ONE Google search, and the solution was the FIRST document that popped up. Yet look at the dark and sinister, completely NONSENSICAL speculation that Michael, Morley and others have launched into with this nothingburger. There are TWO pieces at JFK Facts on this, and Morley refers to it as a "bombshell."
A bombshell? A BOMBSHELL??? ARE YOU KIDDIN' ME??? (Jim Mora voice) :D :D :D
15 SECONDS, PEOPLE. ONE GOOGLE SEARCH.
This is the problem with factoid-busting. You aren't just battling dubious factual assertions that prove to be false. You're battling the schmucks who pose as serious researchers, the credulous goofballs who believe and defend them, and the schmucks and goofballs who continue to assert, believe and defend them after they've been exposed.
Think Morley and Michael are going to acknowledge the egg on their faces and publsh a big "Oops"? Hell, no. They'll dig in their heels and insist their "bombshell" document is talking about something else, something dark and sinister.
This game is so stupid it's not even entertaining anymore. If you folks think it's a productive use of your time engaging with the likes of Dan and Michael, complete and utter loons, you deserve and can have them.
-
In 1963, Bill Harvey could have had an authentic US passport with whatever name he wanted. This whole topic mystifies me. The FAA, a civil agency, has no authority to arrest and detain people, and no authority to issue a credential that would prevent arrests by other law enforcement agencies.
No CIA officer would need any authority or credential from the FAA to travel incognito. This makes no sense. No ones ID was checked pre-boarding in the 1960s. Morley calls this a "bombshell," but then maybe a chimerical molehill is a mountain.
Yes, Harvey could have used a U.S. passport with a different name, which would have been traveling under a false name. So, in the event that was ever caught doing this and was questioned about it, he could cite his FAA travel credential.
Why do you suppose the CIA suppressed this memo for so long and failed to disclose the arrangement to the Church Committee?
I hate to burst Michael's and Morley's bubbles so quickly, but it took me about 15 seconds to determine that this was an authorization to carry a firearm. See paragraphs 4 and 5 of the attached. You CTers are too easy. Give me something hard, willya?
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R003100260070-5.pdf
This memo has nothing to do with the CIA Zubon memo on an FAA credential for Harvey. As you yourself note, the memo you're citing is about authorization to carry a gun onto a commercial plane and mentions several agencies, not just the FAA. The Zubon memo says nothing about carrying a firearm.
I repeat my questions: Why did the CIA suppress the Zubon memo? Why did CIA not disclose this arrangement to the Church Committee?
Also, if it was merely an arrangement with multiple agencies to carry a gun while flying, why the decades-long suppression? Why the redactions for "national security"? Why withhold this from the Church Committee if it was just about carrying a gun on a plane?
-
"So, in the event that (Harvey) was ever caught doing this (traveling under an assumed name) and was questioned about it, he could cite his FAA travel credential."--MTG
1. It was not a crime in 1963 to travel under an assumed name on a commercial airliner.
2. In the unlikely event Harvey was arrested while in or near a commercial airliner, he would likely show authorities his real ID, that he was CIA working undercover, and no police agency in the US would detain him for a minute longer.
3. I wondered if there is such a thing as an "FAA covert travel credential." AI says there was and is not.
Upon reading the Zubron memo, it says Harvey was requested to receive an "FAA credential number."
That's a horse of a different color!
AI: "Yes, the William King Harvey who was a prominent CIA officer and known as "Wild Bill" Harvey was indeed a licensed pilot. He was a key figure in a joint CIA/Army operation against Fidel Castro."
OK, maybe we are getting somewhere.
AI: "A Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) credential number circa the 1960s was a unique identification number assigned to individuals, likely for their airman certificates, which was used for tracking and regulatory purposes."
In other words, Harvey was being credentialed to fly airplanes. Like every other pilot in the US, he had an FAA credential number. Likely, the CA had an in-house office to handle these sort of time-consuming chores with other federal agencies.
The CIA has kept many useless memos sequestered since the 1960s.
-
AI: "Yes, the William King Harvey who was a prominent CIA officer and known as "Wild Bill" Harvey was indeed a licensed pilot. He was a key figure in a joint CIA/Army operation against Fidel Castro."
OK, maybe we are getting somewhere.
AI: "A Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) credential number circa the 1960s was a unique identification number assigned to individuals, likely for their airman certificates, which was used for tracking and regulatory purposes."
In other words, Harvey was being credentialed to fly airplanes. Like every other pilot in the US, he had an FAA credential number. Likely, the CA had an in-house office to handle these sort of time-consuming chores with other federal agencies.
I think that raises even more questions than if the FAA credential was for traveling under a different name. Why would the CIA have wanted to get Harvey an FAA credential to fly planes when he was the CIA chief of station in Rome, Italy, at the time? That doesn't make sense to me.
Also, if the FAA credential was just for flying planes, why did the CIA withhold this from the Church Committee, and why was the memo redacted for "national security"? What would be sensitive about a routine FAA credential to fly planes for a guy who was licensed pilot?
And, again, what was Harvey doing on a commercial flight to Dallas in early November, when he was seen on the flight by Mark Wyatt, who worked with Harvey in Rome?
The CIA has kept many useless memos sequestered since the 1960s.
I suspect that the CIA documents on Harvey's travels in 1963 are not entirely useless.
-
MTG-
An "FAA credential number" was sought for Bill Harvey but not under an assumed name. Read the Zubron memo again.
The CIA is seeking an "FAA credential" for Bill Harvey in Bill Harvey's name! The FAA credential sought is likely related to Harvey's pilot license.
There is nothing in the memo about an assumed name or traveling covertly, etc.
Indeed, one might wonder if Harvey planned a covert mission inside the US...whether he, or anyone at the CIA, would seek FAA clearance for such an op. Certainly, the answer is "no!" The idea is laughable.
I don't know why this record was not released a long time ago.
How this "bombshell" morphed into Harvey traveling covertly in the US on commercial airliners just before the JFKA....is a sign the CT community (of which I am reluctant part) needs to "get tough" on information. Not everything is a telltale clue.
Morley is desperate for paying subscribers. Maybe Mossad used Bill Harvey's FAA credential to bring assassins to Dallas.
-
Maybe Mossad used Bill Harvey's FAA credential to bring assassins to Dallas.
Hey! Here's an idea!
Maybe psychologically disturbed former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK all by him widdle self-described Marxist self!
-
Yes, Harvey could have used a U.S. passport with a different name, which would have been traveling under a false name. So, in the event that was ever caught doing this and was questioned about it, he could cite his FAA travel credential.
Why do you suppose the CIA suppressed this memo for so long and failed to disclose the arrangement to the Church Committee?
This memo has nothing to do with the CIA Zubon memo on an FAA credential for Harvey. As you yourself note, the memo you're citing is about authorization to carry a gun onto a commercial plane and mentions several agencies, not just the FAA. The Zubon memo says nothing about carrying a firearm.
I repeat my questions: Why did the CIA suppress the Zubon memo? Why did CIA not disclose this arrangement to the Church Committee?
Also, if it was merely an arrangement with multiple agencies to carry a gun while flying, why the decades-long suppression? Why the redactions for "national security"? Why withhold this from the Church Committee if it was just about carrying a gun on a plane?
It is not POSSIBLE that people are actually this dense ... is it?
The Zubon memo says nothing about ANYTHING - travel, passport, pilot license, or whatever other nonsense you want to impute to it.
The document that I linked is a CIA INTERNAL MEMORANDUM to the DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE from the DEPUTY DIRECTOR (SUPPORT). It is stamped January 23, 1963, more than two months before the Zubon memo.
It states in paragraphs 4 and 5 that new Congressional legislation prohibits individuals from carrying concealed firearms on commercial aircraft. HOWEVER, arrangements have been made for the CIA's Office of Security to issue to qualified CIA personnel an FAA firearms credential to allow them to carry concealed weapons.
The Zubon memo is addressed to the FAA Security Division from the CIA Office of Security, asking that the FAA's records reflect that Harvey has been issued FAA Credential Number 4888. I confirmed in a CIA publication from this era that it was the CIA Office of Security that ensured CIA personnel were trained and qualified with firearms before a credential was issued. Hence, the Zubon memo is simply the CIA informing the FAA that Harvey has qualified and been issued the credential and that the FAA's records should reflect this fact (and that his credential may be verified if his authority is questioned).
There is no mystery here. There is no doubt. Everything - the timing, the terminology, the offices involved - is a perfect fit. End of discussion - or least it should be.
It is not POSSIBLE that people are actually this dense ... is it???
(Yes, Lance, it is.)
-
At the risk of overkill, look at Zubon's title - Chief of Building Security. Do some Googling as to the sort of stuff in which Building Security was involved, such as the issuance of passes to contractors. The likelihood of Building Security being involved in super-secret clandestine stuff with Harvey - and sending memos about it to the FAA - is rather small. Think, people.
-
It is not POSSIBLE that people are actually this dense ... is it???
(Yes, Lance, it is.)
Oh Lance, sadly it is possible - we're seeing it right now with Michael Griffith both on this forum and over at the Education Forum. Never a conspiracy canard they don't embrace with religious fervor over there!
-
JFK Facts and Morley keep saying the FAA documents did something to enable "covert" travel in the US by Bill Harvey.
See Jefferson Morley's X-twitter account.
"Our scoop last week: CIA assassination chief Bill Harvey obtained fake credentials to travel in the United States after the Kennedy White House had exiled him to Rome."---JM
What are the "fake" credentials? What I see is a credential issued on Harvey's name (Zubron memo).
"The story is this: the CIA's assassination chief obtained FAA credentials to travel covertly inside the U.S. while supposedly serving as the station chief in Rome. And then a CIA colleagues saw him on a flight to Dallas.
Stay tuned for more developments."--JM
Why would Harvey need FAA credentials to travel covertly in the US? Anyone could travel "covertly" in the US at that time. All Harvey would need is a toupe and sunglasses.
I do not subscribe to JFK Facts, so that is all I know.
Can anyone explain why Morley thinks what he thinks?
LP has offered an explanation. I have one regarding Harvey being a FAA-licensed pilot. I think LP's explanation is better.
Is Morley making a mountain out of molehill?
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/morley-s-latest-william-harvey-nothingburger (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/morley-s-latest-william-harvey-nothingburger)
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-s-william-harvey-nothingburger-continued
(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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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, 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.
-
TG-
To answer your collegial question, my take is that the CIA is not in the practice of publishing names of their paid contract sources. So, very few such names have entered open-source literature.
So Clay Shaw gets a lot of hits and goes high in the algos.
Clay Shaw worked in an organization (the trade mart) that shipped goods and documents, and traveled, internationally.
It makes sense Shaw was some sort of paid CIA contract source, and perhaps even helped on some operational matters, as in shipping goods.
I cannot prove that. I doubt Shaw had much to do with the JFKA.
But as I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
TG-
To answer your collegial question, my take is that the CIA is not in the practice of publishing names of their paid contract sources. So, very few such names have entered open-source literature.
So Clay Shaw gets a lot of hits and goes high in the algos.
Clay Shaw worked in an organization (the trade mart) that shipped goods and documents, and traveled, internationally.
It makes sense Shaw was some sort of paid CIA contract source, and perhaps even helped on some operational matters, as in shipping goods.
I cannot prove that. I doubt Shaw had much to do with the JFKA.
But as I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
I think it's because the evil, evil CIA never uses the nonsensical expression "contract source" except when its incompetent historical staff cobbles together some old memos in a "Chinese Whispers" kinda way.
Unless, of course, Mole Solie (whom, you will remember, JFKA CT and researcher Malcolm Blunt told Bart "The Xxxx" Kamp in September of 2021 was "All over the Kennedy Investigation and all over Clay Shaw for Jim Garrison") "got to" said historical staff and/or its incompetent chief, J. Kenneth McDonald.
When you go to 100:29 for this revelation, bear in mind that Blunt says "Jim DiEugenio . . . Jim DiEugenio" when he means to say "Jim Garrison . . . Jim Garrison."
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=%22malcolm+blunt%22+nosenko+youtube&mid=7DBB503AA54F7BE317ED7DBB503AA54F7BE317ED&FORM=VIRE
-
My God, these CT loons just never give up ...
Larry Schnapf - a/k/a I'm Increasingly Thinking He's Nuts - just posted on the Other Forum:
What JFK Facts has reported is that Charles Niles was an aviator who died in 1916 so his name was being used as an alias. Here is link to Niles wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Franklin_Niles
JFK Facts "has reported"? Reported? It's just about all you encounter when you try to research Charles F. Niles. Yes, Charles Franklin Niles was indeed a well-known aviator who crashed, which makes researching the name rather difficult. There was also a Charles F. Niles, Jr. and a Charles F. Niles III, not to mention a surprising number of other Charles F. Niles.
HOW BATSH*T CRAZY would you have to be to think that "Charles F. Niles" was being used as an alias for some FAA grunt whose name appears in federal employee directories (from as early as 1959 and as late as 1968, just by what Fred found)? The CIA assigned Buford H. Philbin the alias Charles F. Niles because ____________? Please, try to fill in the blank with something that doesn't make you sound insane.
Is the theory that this was some inside joke? Yeah, let's disguise old Buford with an alias that matches the name of a renowned aviator. Hello?
-
My God, these CT loons just never give up ...
Larry Schnapf - a/k/a I'm Increasingly Thinking He's Nuts - just posted on the Other Forum:
What JFK Facts has reported is that Charles Niles was an aviator who died in 1916 so his name was being used as an alias. Here is link to Niles wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Franklin_Niles
JFK Facts "has reported"? Reported? It's just about all you encounter when you try to research Charles F. Niles. Yes, Charles Franklin Niles was indeed a well-known aviator who crashed, which makes researching the name rather difficult. There was also a Charles Franklin Niles, Jr. and a Charles Franklin Niles III, not to mention a surprising number of other Charles F. Niles.
HOW BATSH*T CRAZY would you have to be to think that "Charles F. Niles" was being used as an alias for some FAA grunt whose name appears in federal employee directories? The CIA assigned Buford H. Philbin the alias Charles F. Niles because ____________? Please, try to fill in the blank with something that doesn't make you sound insane.
Dear Fancy Prancer Rants,
Don't you understand?
"Former" KGB counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin cherishes what Larry Schnapf, Jefferson Morley, and Chester "Chad" Nagle, Jr., et al., have been doing for so many years.
-- Tom
-
OK, CT loons, you have unleashed the Caped Factoid Buster in all his terrible fury ...
The Official Register of the United States – aka the Blue Book – was published every year until 1959. You can find and easily search every edition here: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002137439.
I’m not going to spend days on this silliness, but I can tell you this:
In both 1954 and 1955, Charles F. Niles was a Deputy Security Officer in the Security Office of the Office of the Executive Director of the U.S. Civil Service Commission.
In 1958, he was the Assistant Chief of Security Investigations in the Investigations Division of the Bureau of Departmental Operations of the U.S. Civil Service Commission.
He was based in Ohio and then Virginia. He seemingly joined the Federal Aviation Agency in Virginia in 1959.
Are we done yet?
Anyone else remember Susan Powter, or am I the only one who thinks of her every time I log on to a JFKA forum?
-
LP--
The CT'ers and the LN'ers show great imagination and initiative in bending facts and fabricating alternative realities.
I agree, Charles Niles was a real person and worked at the FAA. I seriously doubt that King Harvey would need anything from the FAA, for any reason, having to do with anything clandestine. The topic is risible.
On the other hand, the CIA historian wrote (in a formal report, not a mere memo) that Clay Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA.
There are LN'ers who insist that the CIA historian meant to write something else. In other words, on the very sensitive topic of Clay Shaw, who had endured a very public trial regarding the JFKA, the CIA historian made an overt error, and then never corrected the error.
Well, let's all play make-believe and patty-cake!
There are CT'ers who say JFK's "peace speech" given to college students at American University on June 10 1963 is his signature, but not his later (and much better) speech at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.
Well, it is in the air. I suspect 95% of academic papers write the abstract and conclusion first, and then study the topic to buttress.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
[A] CIA historian wrote (in a formal report, not a mere memo) that Clay Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" of the CIA. There are LN'ers who insist that the CIA historian meant to write something else. In other words, on the very sensitive topic of Clay Shaw, who had endured a very public trial regarding the JFKA, the CIA historian made an overt error, and then never corrected the error.
What, pray tell, is a "highly paid CIA contract source," and why is it that when I google the phrase "CIA contract source," the only "hits" I get (pardon the pun) are for evil, evil, evil Clay Shaw?
Certainly, if there was such a thing as a "CIA contract source," evil, evil, evil Clay Shaw couldn't have been the only one.
Gasp . . . could he?
Boy-oh-boy, wouldn't it be something if it wasn't an error made by incompetent J. Kenneth McDonald or his staff when they cobbled together some old reports on Shaw, but probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie (ironically, James JESUS Angleton's confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior in the mole-hunting Office of Security!!!) actually fed that bit of misinformation to incompetent J. Kenneth or his staff?
Boy-oh-boy-oh-boy-oh-boy.
-
TG-
According to the CIA historian, "a highly paid contract source" was Clay Shaw.
Why internet algos do what they do...I understand in theory, but as to this particular topic, I don't know.
But, caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.
-
According to the CIA historian, "a highly paid contract source" was Clay Shaw.
Why internet algos do what they do...I understand in theory, but as to this particular topic, I don't know.
But, caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions.
In other words, you don't know, and nobody else, does either.
"Caveat emptor and draw your own conclusions"?
I already have, dude, and I'm not buying what you, Paese Sera, Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, and Linda Pease, et al. ad nauseum, are selling.
-
On the Clay Shaw stuff, I would simply note that:
1. Shaw was an absolutely perfect candidate to be a "source" for the CIA's Domestic Contact Service. He would have been exactly the sort of individual they were interested in and in fact did provide some information during the relevant time period.
2. Domestic contact sources were typically not paid at all, let alone "highly paid."
3. It's hard for me to imagine what Shaw would have done, on either a contact or contract basis, for him to be "highly paid" by the CIA.
4. "Contract source" is odd terminology. There is legal terminology such as a "sole source contract," but to refer to the contractor as a "contract source" would definitely be odd.
5. I once did a considerable search for references to "contract source" and came up empty except for the Shaw stuff. HOWEVER, I did find references to "contact source" in several intelligence contexts. For example, this is from the U.S. Army's "Human Intelligence Collector Operations Manual," https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/150085.pdf:
Of Potential Interest as a Contact Source. On occasion, especially during stability and reconstruction operations, the HUMINT collector may identify an individual who has the potential to provide information in the future, due to his placement or access. Although the individual may not have information of immediate interest, the HUMINT collector will pass his recommendation to the appropriate office, normally the C/J/G/S2X, provided that source operations are authorized (see Chapter 5).
6. The Shaw memo is such a one-off, long-after-the-fact outlier that I lean strongly toward the interpretation that something simply got lost in translation and he was simply one of thousands of contact sources. I have no clue where "highly paid" would have come from.
-
I have no clue where "highly paid" would have come from.
Gosh, maybe it's either mis-transcribed from "highly valued" or an indication of input from probable "mole" Bruce Solie?
-
I did see that Shaw had agreed in 1955 to attend an international conference on behalf of the CIA provided the expenses were borne by the CIA and was referred to at that time as a "valued source." Perhaps McDonald saw some raw dollar figures for travel reimbursement and thought that equated to "highly paid." Shaw was quite wealthy, so perhaps the memo means nothing more than "rich guy cont[r]act source" - not "highly paid by the CIA cont[r]act source." Who cares anyway? Shaw's activities seem pretty well-known and he seems to me right up there with Ruth Paine as an unfairly maligned victim of CT craziness.
-
I did see that Shaw had agreed in 1955 to attend an international conference on behalf of the CIA provided the expenses were borne by the CIA and was referred to at that time as a "valued source." Perhaps McDonald saw some raw dollar figures for travel reimbursement and thought that equated to "highly paid." Shaw was quite wealthy, so perhaps the memo means nothing more than "rich guy cont[r]act source" - not "highly paid by the CIA cont[r]act source." Who cares anyway? Shaw's activities seem pretty well-known and he seems to me right up there with Ruth Paine as an unfairly maligned victim of CT craziness.
Russophile Ruthie did nothing wrong!!!
Nyet! Nyet! Nyet!
-
Well, I have been inspired to purchase, for a mere $7.99 in the Kindle version, this massive biography of Clay Shaw: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Million-Fragments-True-Story/dp/0692226419/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pb_opt?ie=UTF8.
Based on the reviews, my guess is that it will have the same effect as the massive biography of George de Mohrenschildt - i.e., further convince me that the dark and sinister CT speculation is fundamentally nutty. When you think about it, it's almost incredible: So many of the key figures in the JFKA - Oswald, Marina, Ruth Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, Clay Shaw, Allen Dulles and many others - have "CT versions" of themselves that are almost completely at odds with the real people.
Interestingly, the Shaw book has an Amazon review by Carlos Bringuier:
Dr. Carlos J. Bringuier
5.0 out of 5 stars A TRUE BIOGRAPHY OF A VICTIM
Reviewed in the United States on June 30, 2013
I met Clay Shaw the day of his acquittal. This man won the trial but lost his life persecuted by a deranged, communist, District Attorney who for some reasons wanted to destroy a leader of the community. I hope that one day a Hollywood producer decides to do justice to the memory of Clay Shaw and make a real movie about this poor man. Oliver Stone should be ashamed of his JFK movie where he depicted Jim Garrison as an honest District Attorney.
The references to me in this book are accurate and not distorted. I congratulate Donald H. Carpenter in his very good job writing this book
-
Well, I have been inspired to purchase, for a mere $7.99 in the Kindle version, this massive biography of Clay Shaw: https://www.amazon.com/Man-Million-Fragments-True-Story/dp/0692226419/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_pb_opt?ie=UTF8.
Based on the reviews, my guess is that it will have the same effect as the massive biography of George de Mohrenschildt - i.e., further convince me that the dark and sinister CT speculation is fundamentally nutty. When you think about it, it's almost incredible: So many of the key figures in the JFKA - Oswald, Marina, Ruth Paine, George de Mohrenschildt, Clay Shaw, Allen Dulles and many others - have "CT versions" of themselves that are almost completely at odds with the real people.
Interestingly, the Shaw book has an Amazon review by Carlos Bringuier:
Dr. Carlos J. Bringuier
5.0 out of 5 stars A TRUE BIOGRAPHY OF A VICTIM
Reviewed in the United States on June 30, 2013
I met Clay Shaw the day of his acquittal. This man won the trial but lost his life persecuted by a deranged, communist, District Attorney who for some reasons wanted to destroy a leader of the community. I hope that one day a Hollywood producer decides to do justice to the memory of Clay Shaw and make a real movie about this poor man. Oliver Stone should be ashamed of his JFK movie where he depicted Jim Garrison as an honest District Attorney.
The references to me in this book are accurate and not distorted. I congratulate Donald H. Carpenter in his very good job writing this book
If you want a Reader's Digest version (the book is enormously detailed) look up the footnotes on Hunter Leake (right, Leake). He was the CIA Domestic Contacts agent that Shaw communicated/worked with. Carpenter says that Shaw's information (apparently all on economic/trade matters) over the eight years (1948-56) of the relationship generated eight CIA reports with six still around.
All of Shaw's activity with the CIA apparently ended in 1956 when he also largely stopped traveling abroad when promoting the Trade Mart. Apparently (there's that word again) the last contact was in 1956 when it seems Leake (or someone with the CIA) approached Shaw about helping them find out about shipments of mercury from Spain and Italy to the Soviet bloc. Shaw offered to write letters to companies in Italy and Spain about the question. The CIA later said it wasn't needed. Carpenter doesn't mention anything about Shaw being "highly paid."
Shaw regularly traveled overseas during that early period promoting the Trade Mart so it makes sense that the CIA would have a formal relationship with him about what he saw or heard. This was not some person traveling abroad on an occasion and then being interviewed about what he or she heard. The above mentioned mercury matter doesn't seem to be something someone with an informal or ad hoc relationship would be asked to do. As to the payments, again Carpenter doesn't mention any being made or discussions about it.
As you point out, Shaw would have been an ideal person to use by the CIA for economic or trade information. But there's nothing indicating he did anything more than that.
-
Shaw had a position in an international trade mart that would allow him to use that facility to move goods or documents, and have eyes and ears in a lot of places.
It may be the CIA did not spend its money wisely---after all, they are not a private-sector company, and thus had to get a measurable return on its investment.
In the military and intel worlds, a lot of people are paid to "stand and wait." In case they are some day needed. Some people are reimbursed based on their status and potential value, and perhaps not actual worth.
If a CIA historian in a prepared report---not a memo, or causal conversation---referred to anyone as a "highly paid contract source," and never retracted the statement, I would consider that to be a true statement.
The fact that the CIA historian's statement was made regarding an individual who had, very publicly, been prosecuted for the JFKA makes its doubly unlikely that the "highly paid contract source" description of Shaw is in error.
The probable truth that Shaw was in fact a "highly paid contract source" hardly proves the JFKA was perped by the CIA, or even that there was a JFKAC. My take is Shaw had nothing to do with the JFKA.
Perhaps Shaw was asked to figure out who was LHO, someone who would be reasonably regarded as a suspect character. Maybe Shaw never even met LHO---but Shaw was still a highly paid contract source.
CT'ers and LN'ers both tend to regard evidence they do not like as "faked" or in error. Usually CT'ers, but it can go both ways.
As I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
Shaw had a position in an international trade mart that would allow him to use that facility to move goods or documents, and have eyes and ears in a lot of places.
It may be the CIA did not spend its money wisely---after all, they are not a private-sector company, and thus had to get a measurable return on its investment.
In the military and intel worlds, a lot of people are paid to "stand and wait." In case they are some day needed. Some people are reimbursed based on their status and potential value, and perhaps not actual worth.
If a CIA historian in a prepared report---not a memo, or causal conversation---referred to anyone as a "highly paid contract source," and never retracted the statement, I would consider that to be a true statement.
The fact that the CIA historian's statement was made regarding an individual who had, very publicly, been prosecuted for the JFKA makes its doubly unlikely that the "highly paid contract source" description of Shaw is in error.
The probable truth that Shaw was in fact a "highly paid contract source" hardly proves the JFKA was perped by the CIA, or even that there was a JFKAC. My take is Shaw had nothing to do with the JFKA.
Perhaps Shaw was asked to figure out who was LHO, someone who would be reasonably regarded as a suspect character. Maybe Shaw never even met LHO---but Shaw was still a highly paid contract source.
CT'ers and LN'ers both tend to regard evidence they do not like as "faked" or in error. Usually CT'ers, but it can go both ways.
You're full of high-fructose beans.
Pardon my collegiality.
-
I beg to differ.
I only eat low-fructose beans!
-
I beg to differ.
I only eat low-fructose beans!
The frequency of your emissions argues otherwise.
-
Given our lack of geographic propinquity, perhaps the flatulence that so completely envelops you has a more proximate origin.
-
Given our lack of geographic propinquity, perhaps the flatulence that so completely envelops you has a more proximate origin.
People in your neck of the woods have told me otherwise.
-
Carpenter does have this interesting account, one that shows Shaw as much more of an active participant - taking orders/directives from the CIA - and not a passive one - simply reporting on what he saw.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12866272442/Key1l4d1x18wrc1/kirkpatrick.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12866272427/Key62ix3fm67yl0/kirkpatrick 2.JPG)
-
Carpenter does have this interesting account, one that shows Shaw as much more of an active participant - taking orders/directives from the CIA - and not a passive one - simply reporting on what he saw.
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12866272442/Key1l4d1x18wrc1/kirkpatrick.JPG)
(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID12866272427/Key62ix3fm67yl0/kirkpatrick 2.JPG)
That dirty rotten son of a gun!!!
-
I couldn't locate the Kirkpatrick memo via Google, and Carpenter's citation is just a generic "CIA Miscellaneous Files, JFK Assassination Collection, National Archives." It was right after this, in March of 1949, that Shaw received a "five agency clearance" that is referred to with dark and sinister implications (but nothing more in terms of explanation) all over the internet.
As we said, Shaw's position with the Trade Mart and his extensive international travel would have made him just about a dream candidate as a CIA citizen "contact." When one reads through the efforts that the CIA undertook to document its specific contacts with Shaw - which would hardly rise to the level of him being a "highly paid" anything - one is forced to conclude that he was either (1) simply a patriotic American with a distinguished military career who was in almost the perfect position to be of assistance to the CIA in its information-gathering efforts in the post-War years, or, as the CTers posit, (2) one of The Most Interesting Men In the World with an incredible web of CIA and other sinister connections so dark and deep that they were hidden within the bowels of the Agency and undiscoverable even by those who were trying to document them.
I just don't find #2 plausible at all. I am starting to like the idea that perhaps McDonald saw some dollar figures for travel reimbursement and thought this equated to "highly paid," because otherwise I can't imagine what he could have been talking about.
Surely it is significant that the McDonald memo has Shaw being a "highly paid contract source" through 1956, which "just happens" to be the last year that everything else identifies him as being active with the Domestic Contact program. Moreover, the McDonald memo does not purport to be a "history" of anything. It purports only to be a survey of the specific 64 boxes of records that the CIA had collected for the HSCA, with the Shaw materials seemingly in just a couple of boxes. I believe these were all transferred to the National Archives.
Did the HSCA or ARRB or anyone else ever discover any document on which McDonald or his team could have relied in concluding that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" - or was this, as I suspect, just a "Domestic Contact source" being garbled in translation?
-
Just to refresh peoples' memories, Clay Shaw's testimony at the Garrison trial runs 80 pages. This is the total of what he was asked about the CIA:
Q: Mr. Shaw, have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?
A: No, I have not.
This was on direct examination by Shaw's own attorney. There was zero follow-up on cross.
It was not Shaw's obligation to ask "What do you mean by 'worked for'?" Nor was it Shaw's obligation to volunteer "Well, I did serve as a domestic contact for a few years." It was up to the prosecution on cross to ask "Have you ever had any relationship or association with the CIA?"
-
LP-
Well, Shaw seems to have perjured himself in that answer in the courtroom, but draw your own conclusions.
I don't understand why Fred Litwin has gone out of the limb, and said that despite that the CIA historian, in writing, in a report, said that that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" that Shaw was actually a "highly rated contact source." This is CT-nut level stretching of evidence by Litwin. Usually Litwin is shrewdly cynical and skeptical.
In fact, I don't understand what the big deal is. So Shaw was a "highly paid contract source." So what? Given his position in a trade mart, he is a likely candidate for the role. Maybe he was overpaid. Oh, that never happens on a government contract.
Shaw as a CIA contract asset does not prove there was a JFKAC, or that Shaw had anything to do with it.
I rather suspect Shaw was asked to take a look-see on LHO, who was surely someone worth taking a look-see at. Just like the CIA guy in Dallas asked deMohrenschildt to look at LHO. LHO had defected to Russia and might have been a KGB asset, after all.
LN'ers should avoid CT-type hysterics. But, what goes around comes around.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
LP-
Well, Shaw seems to have perjured himself in that answer in the courtroom, but draw your own conclusions.
I don't understand why Fred Litwin has gone out of the limb, and said that despite that the CIA historian, in writing, in a report, said that that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" that Shaw was actually a "highly rated contact source." This is CT-nut level stretching of evidence by Litwin. Usually Litwin is shrewdly cynical and skeptical.
In fact, I don't understand what the big deal is. So Shaw was a "highly paid contract source." So what? Given his position in a trade mart, he is a likely candidate for the role. Maybe he was overpaid. Oh, that never happens on a government contract.
Shaw as a CIA contract asset does not prove there was a JFKAC, or that Shaw had anything to do with it.
I rather suspect Shaw was asked to take a look-see on LHO, who was surely someone worth taking a look-see at. Just like the CIA guy in Dallas asked deMohrenschildt to look at LHO. LHO had defected to Russia and might have been a KGB asset, after all.
LN'ers should avoid CT-type hysterics. But, what goes around comes around.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
I believe the CT implication is that "highly paid contract source" suggests some much more elaborate and sinister relationship than the contact source relationship we know Shaw had. Due to Shaw's wealth, association with the Trade Mart, and international travel, he would have been an exceptional contact source - which well could have included international travel that was only marginally TM related and more CIA related (although I have yet to see any evidence of this).
Shaw did not perjure himself unless, perhaps, he actually was a highly paid contract source. I am sure the question was carefully crafted by his lawyer. "Work for" implies employment, quite distinct from "do any work for." It was up to the prosecution to flesh out the relationship if they had been on their toes. Since Shaw's relationship had ended by 1956 by all accounts, including McDonald's memo, it's not clear to me why he would have dodged simply saying something like, "As did tens of thousands of other patriotic Americans, I provided information to the Agency's domestic contact service in New Orleans on a dozen or so occasions in connection with my Trade Mart contacts and travels."
BTW, the cross-examination of Shaw is almost comical for its gentleness. This was the defendant, for crying out loud, and the prosecution's opportunity to nail him. If you aren't paying attention, you can barely tell where the direct examination ends and the cross begins. There is no attempt at all at impeachment. One gets the impression of a prosecution team that had lost its enthusiasm for the case.
You've slid right past what seem to me two very telling points: (1) McDonald's memo has the "contract source" relationship ending precisely when everything else says the "contact source" relationship ended (1956); and (2) while McDonald's title was Chief of the History Staff, he was not purporting to be writing a history of anything. He was summarizing the History Staff's review of the 64 boxes of CIA materials assembled for the HSCA and making a recommendation as to what to do with them (i.e., transfer them to the National Archives). The comment about Shaw is in the vein of "Oh, by the way ...."
My question is, where is anything - anything - to support that this wasn't simply a mistake by McDonald's staff? This seems to me by far the more plausible explanation. Where was any follow-up by anyone? Instead, CTers do with McDonald's memo what they always love to do - seize upon the phrase in McDonald's memo as though it had vast significance and then use it for all sorts of dark speculation - but do no follow-up at all, probably because they fear that any follow-up will expose yet another Double Nothing Whopper with bacon and cheese. (McDonald wrote the foreword to a CIA-related book in November of 2023 and for all I know may still be around.)
FWIW, here is a 2-hour presentation at the National Archives in 1996 that includes a number of current and former members of the CIA History Staff, including McDonald: https://www.c-span.org/program/public-affairs-event/cia-in-the-early-postwar-period/57851.
Now I will read the Shaw book and reemerge as a Shaw authority as well as a Sports Drome authority. :D
-
LP-
Well, Shaw seems to have perjured himself in that answer in the courtroom, but draw your own conclusions.
I don't understand why Fred Litwin has gone out of the limb, and said that despite that the CIA historian, in writing, in a report, said that that Shaw was a "highly paid contract source" that Shaw was actually a "highly rated contact source." This is CT-nut level stretching of evidence by Litwin. Usually Litwin is shrewdly cynical and skeptical.
In fact, I don't understand what the big deal is. So Shaw was a "highly paid contract source." So what? Given his position in a trade mart, he is a likely candidate for the role. Maybe he was overpaid. Oh, that never happens on a government contract.
Shaw as a CIA contract asset does not prove there was a JFKAC, or that Shaw had anything to do with it.
I rather suspect Shaw was asked to take a look-see on LHO, who was surely someone worth taking a look-see at. Just like the CIA guy in Dallas asked deMohrenschildt to look at LHO. LHO had defected to Russia and might have been a KGB asset, after all.
LN'ers should avoid CT-type hysterics. But, what goes around comes around.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
But there's no corroborative evidence that Shaw was paid much less highly paid. We have a memo that is, as others point out, filled with errors (e.g., Gilberto Alvarado did not say, as this document claimed, that he saw Oswald at a party in Mexico City). And as others have pointed out, the phrase "contract source" was not a term the CIA used.
You are plucking out a single memo and uncritically accepting it and ignoring all of this other evidence (Marchetti's claims for example). If there's anything we should have learned about all of these documents it's how filled with errors they could be. Carpenter cites several CIA memos on Shaw and there's nothing even remotely mentioning anything about him being a paid source.
The evidence shows, to me, that Shaw was not just an ordinary American who was debriefed by the CIA, someone who visited Spain and then was questioned by Leake. It looks like he had a more formal relationship with them (for obvious reasons). But there's nothing about being paid for his information. This was the Cold War. Stalin was running the Soviet Union, the Korean War was going on, it was a dangerous period. Of course you'd help the CIA deal with that threat.
But as usual with this conspiracy nonsense, none of this gets us to Dallas at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. How do you go from Shaw to that event? You can't. Shaw was allegedly seen at a gathering where he, Oswald and Ferrie plotted the assassination. With complete strangers listening in (who believe that?). Then what? What did Shaw do? Connect Shaw to Dallas, please. But they can't. It's all conspiracy mongering by the usual suspects, people whose heads spin when they hear "CIA", and who, for some reason, people still think are credible.
-
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/two-reasons-why-clay-shaw-never-admitted-to-being-a-domestic-contact-of-the-cia (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/two-reasons-why-clay-shaw-never-admitted-to-being-a-domestic-contact-of-the-cia)
-
Of course, lying to the CBC is scarcely perjury. In a Penthouse interview by James Phelan, Shaw likewise said "I have never had any connection with the CIA."
I have no doubt that the question to Shaw by his attorney Dymond at the Garrison trial was carefully crafted and rehearsed because it would have been Malpractice 101 to do otherwise, especially when the witness was the defendant in a serious criminal trial. I have a hard time believing Shaw's attorneys weren't aware of this CIA connection by then, although even Fred's nemesis Jim DiEugenio concedes that Shaw had said nothing to them seven months after being indicted. As the CIA document says, it's "hard to believe" that Shaw hadn't alerted them to his prior cooperation as a contact source and that the question wasn't carefully crafted to dodge "voluntary cooperation as a contact source" by saying "worked for." On the other hand, I don't know why Dymond would have waded into this at all unless he was confident the prosecution wouldn't follow up. It's a classic example of "opening the door" to what could become awkward questions on cross. Very odd.
As far as I can tell, most of those who cooperated with the Domestic Contact Division (later Service) were simply tourists, business travelers and immigrants. One memo says the Domestic Contact Division, which had offices in 15 cities, was "openly identified as being connected with the CIA" and engaged in "overt collection of positive intelligence" by "picking the brains" of citizen volunteers. A Senate report said that alerting Domestic Contact volunteers that their information might be used in furtherance of clandestine operations by other divisions of the CIA would "violate the important rule of compartmentalization." Although the memo says Shaw was merely "enjoined to secrecy" and apparently not required to sign a Secrecy Agreement, there are such agreements (basically one-pagers) being requested by the Domestic Contact Service. Although I couldn't find any definite protocols, I would assume all contacts were at least "enjoined to secrecy" both for the protection of the program (i.e., types of questions being asked) and their own safety. I would guess that Shaw, given the nature of his position with the Trade Mart and frequent international travel, was a "highly valued contact source" who was in the upper echelons of contacts and took the admonition to secrecy seriously. Clearly, his relationship was more ongoing during the years in question than that of a mere tourist or routine business traveler.
-
Of course, lying to the CBC is scarcely perjury. In a Penthouse interview by James Phelan, Shaw likewise said "I have never had any connection with the CIA."
I have no doubt that the question to Shaw by his attorney Dymond at the Garrison trial was carefully crafted and rehearsed because it would have been Malpractice 101 to do otherwise, especially when the witness was the defendant in a serious criminal trial. I have a hard time believing Shaw's attorneys weren't aware of this CIA connection by then, although even Fred's nemesis Jim DiEugenio concedes that Shaw had said nothing to them seven months after being indicted. As the CIA document says, it's "hard to believe" that Shaw hadn't alerted them to his prior cooperation as a contact source and that the question wasn't carefully crafted to dodge "voluntary cooperation as a contact source" by saying "worked for." On the other hand, I don't know why Dymond would have waded into this at all unless he was confident the prosecution wouldn't follow up. It's a classic example of "opening the door" to what could become awkward questions on cross. Very odd.
As far as I can tell, most of those who cooperated with the Domestic Contact Division (later Service) were simply tourists, business travelers and immigrants. One memo says the Domestic Contact Division, which had offices in 15 cities, was "openly identified as being connected with the CIA" and engaged in "overt collection of positive intelligence" by "picking the brains" of citizen volunteers. A Senate report said that alerting Domestic Contact volunteers that their information might be used in furtherance of clandestine operations by other divisions of the CIA would "violate the important rule of compartmentalization." Although the memo says Shaw was merely "enjoined to secrecy" and apparently not required to sign a Secrecy Agreement, there are such agreements (basically one-pagers) being requested by the Domestic Contact Service. Although I couldn't find any definite protocols, I would assume all contacts were at least "enjoined to secrecy" both for the protection of the program (i.e., types of questions being asked) and their own safety. I would guess that Shaw, given the nature of his position with the Trade Mart and frequent international travel, was a "highly valued contact source" who was in the upper echelons of contacts and took the admonition to secrecy seriously. Clearly, his relationship was more ongoing during the years in question than that of a mere tourist or routine business traveler.
I'm pretty sure that Shaw's lawyers said he denied to them having any contacts with the CIA. Not just whether he had ever worked for them. I think this is mentioned somewhere by Carpenter but I can't find it offhand. Or maybe it's in the Lambert book.
Thus the willingness of Dymond to broach the topic. He thought there was nothing there. If Shaw had mentioned this relationship with the DCS then it seems obvious that Dymond wouldn't have opened that door. He's setting up his client in a potential perjury trap. With no discovery he doesn't know what Garrison had on Shaw. Let Garrison introduce the issue. Then respond but otherwise play it safe.
There's a CIA memo mentioned in the Carpenter book where they told Lloyd Ray, Leake's boss in NO, after he inquired about what to do if he was asked to admit that Shaw had provided information. But neither Garrison (or the defense team) questioned him about Shaw. If Garrison had done so then Dymond just put his client in a lot of trouble. See page 364 for details.
-
Carpenter deals with the issue at some length in different parts of the book. He says it has never been satisfactorily resolved as to what, if anything, Shaw told his attorneys about his CIA connections. He says that both Washington and New Orleans CIA officials assumed Shaw had told his attorneys but then became concerned that perhaps he hadn't (their concern being the possibility that Garrison might ambush them at trial). The DOJ and CIA legal staffs considered alerting the attorneys but were willing to do this only if they were certain the attorneys themselves could be trusted. The issue arose again in connection with the issue of the signature at the airport VIP room, but then that issue seemed to resolve itself. One of Shaw's attorneys, Wegmann, made inquiries of Garrison's office, but it's not clear if Wegmann knew of Shaw's connections or was just trying to see what Garrison knew.
Carpenter mentions Dymond's raising of the CIA issue at trial but does not seem to attach any great significance or provide any explanation. It simply had to be the case that Dymond knew what answer he would receive from Shaw - this is Trial Practice 101 - so either Shaw flat-out lied to his own attorneys despite the attorney-client privilege or they had arrived at a scenario where Dymond would carefully phrase the question as "worked for" and Shaw would answer no. If Shaw lied to his own attorneys, which sounds more probable, he comes across as rather more stupid and smelly than I would have thought, enough so to make me wonder what else he lied about; he could have easily "cleared" with someone at the CIA that he was going to be honest with his own attorneys about his mere service as a contact source more than a decade ago. The scenario of a carefully worded question and answer would have been extremely risky unless they absolutely knew Garrison had nothing to impeach Shaw with. There is also the professional rule that a lawyer cannot knowingly allow his client to commit perjury, so the only plausible scenario is that Shaw in fact lied to his own attorneys, as he did to the CBC and Penthouse, about a matter that seemingly would not have been significant enough to lie about.
-
I lost the link, but yesterday I discovered a document reporting on a trip Shaw's attorneys Dymond and Wegmann made to the DOJ in Washington. They wanted to inquire about possible CIA connections with a list of about ten people, including Oswald, Shaw and ... themselves! Covering all the bases, I guess. Somebody should make a movie out of this wacky stuff. :D Oh, I have made it through Carpenter's book to the end of Shaw's military career. OSS? Uh, not exactly. Super-secret clandestine weirdness? Uh, not exactly.
-
LP--
Enjoyed your posts on Shaw.
Likely, Shaw was one of thousands of domestic intel assets who sometimes traveled overseas.
Shaw was well-placed to learn about the business and economic scenes of Southern Europe, and also to provide travel and shipments cover.
I can see why Shaw would be a "highly paid contract source."
PS an immediate family member of mine used to travel to the Soviet Union in the 1960s, and was debriefed when he came back. I don't think he was paid. But then, maybe he didn't know as much valuable info as Shaw did.
-
LP--
Enjoyed your posts on Shaw.
Likely, Shaw was one of thousands of domestic intel assets who sometimes traveled overseas.
Shaw was well-placed to learn about the business and economic scenes of Southern Europe, and also to provide travel and shipments cover.
I can see why Shaw would be a "highly paid contract source."
PS an immediate family member of mine used to travel to the Soviet Union in the 1960s, and was debriefed when he came back. I don't think he was paid. But then, maybe he didn't know as much valuable info as Shaw did.
Can you see Shaw as a "highly valued contact source"?
Hint: That's what he was, in spite of what Joan Mellen, Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, and possibly Mole Solie, et al. ad nauseam, want you to believe.