JFK Assassination Forum

Benjamin: That CIA document is a summary of the segregated collection, and there is NO underlying document which says that Clay Shaw was a "highly paid contract source." Of course, there is no such thing as a "contract source." And,
there are many underlying documents that say he was not paid.

It was a mistake, pure and simple. But, go ahead and find the underlying document that supports the statement. They are all online.

fred

Meagher was smart and literate but she revealed, to her credit, her mindset, her motivated reasoning if you will, when she said that when she heard that JFK was shot her first reaction was, "They are going to blame a communist for this." Her first thought. It was not, "Is he dead? Did they catch the people?" but "they are going to blame a communist."

This was something that affected all of her analysis of the assassination. She really did see Oswald as an American Alfred Dreyfus but instead of anti-semitism being the cause for the frame up she saw anti-communism as the reason for "Oswald-as-patsy". It was the anti- anti-communism view of the Left that saw opposition to the Soviet Union and communism as a greater danger - McCarthy and the Red Scare - than Moscow. As Fred pointed out, she was very critical of Garrison, again to her credit, but when he later said that Oswald was innocent she came to if not defend him at least no longer wanting to exile him from the assassination community. And if I have it right, she never really did give an explanation as to what happened, who did kill JFK. She was focused on exonerating Oswald and not saying what happened (which frankly, is a cop-out).

In order to defend Oswald in both the murder of JFK and Tippit (which she also did) you really have to have a deep conspiratorial worldview. She was closer to thinking of Garrison then she realized. I think Tom Bethell said when he met her at her house that it was filled with UFO books. He said to himself, "Oh boy, here we go."

What happened to Richard Smith? He was a breath of fresh air around here.

You've got to be kidding.

"BC" wrote:

The chief of the CIA history staff in 1992 said Shaw was a "highly paid CIA contract source" until 1956.

Some have said that quote was typo, the historian meant to say "highly rated (sic; valued) contact source," although the historian never issued a correction. This seems like a weak argument, to the point of risibility. On such a matter on intense interest, the CIA historian just happened to make multiple typos?

Others have said, somewhat mysteriously, that the underlying documents do not support the historian's conclusion.

I wonder what that means, and who reviewed all the HSCA documents and files, and microfilms, that the CIA historian's office did back in the early 1990s.

Inside those 64 boxes were any number of microfilmed documents.

Am I to believe a JFKA researcher also went through all 64 boxes, and then confirmed that Clay Shaw had never been a CIA contract source? And that the dreadnought researcher's work was confirmed by others?

As it stands, the CIA historian's statement seems solid.

Dear "BC,"

Could you please explain to me what in the world a "CIA contract source" is?

Tangentially, do you agree that Shaw was a voluntary source for the Domestic Contact Service for eight years, and that he produced something like seventeen reports?

If so, don't you find it strange that J. Kenneth would fail to mention that, but would say that he was a "highly paid contract source," instead?

Do you think several people may have been involved managing and summarizing, etc., Shaw's reports from 1948 (when he either patriotically volunteered to be an unpaid contact source or was given a very lucrative contract, indeed, to spy for the evil, evil CIA) to 1956?

Do you think J. Kenneth did all of his own research on everything he wrote about in that long report, or do you think he probably had several helpers?

Do you think that several people on J. Kenneth's hysterical I mean historical staff may have been involved in cobbling the long report together?


'Nuf said.


-- "TG"

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



The chief of the CIA history staff in 1992 said Shaw was a "highly paid CIA contract source" until 1956.

Some have said that quote was typo, the historian meant to "highly rated contact source," although the historian never issued a correction. This seems like a weak argument, to the point of risibility. On such a matter on intense interest, the CIA historian just happened to make multiple typos?

Others have said, somewhat mysteriously, that the underlying documents do not support the historian's conclusion.

I wonder what that means, and who reviewed all the HSCA documents and files, and microfilms, that the CIA historian's office did back in the early 1990s.



Inside those 64 boxes were any number of microfilmed documents.

Am I to believe a JFKA researcher also went through all 64 boxes, and then confirmed that Clay Shaw had never been a CIA contract source? And that the dreadnought researcher's work was confirmed by others?

As it stands, the CIA historian's statement seems solid.

Are the LN'ers doing the CT thing? Any evidence that does not fit the narrative must be false?