JFK Assassination Forum

Tom Graves and Fred Litwin have posited the CIA has no such thing as a "contract source."

This is in reference to the CIA historian's definition of Clay Shaw, made in 1992, as a "highly paid contract source" up until 1956.

The dynamic duo claim the CIA historian was mistaken.

So, I asked AI, "Does the CIA have people they call a "contract source"?

AI answer:

Yes, the CIA uses the term "contract source" (or "contract agent") to describe individuals who are not official, full-time government employees but are paid by the CIA to provide specialized services, information, or to assist with intelligence operations.

These individuals work under written or verbal agreements, often within the Directorate of Operations (the clandestine arm of the agency).

Here are the key details regarding "contract sources" and similar personnel:

Definition: A contract source/agent is any person—often a foreign national or specialized independent contractor—who receives funding from the CIA for services, and who is not a permanent federal employee.
Purpose: They are used for various tasks, including intelligence gathering, technical support, translation services, and security roles, often when the CIA needs to operate without leaving a direct trail to the U.S. government.

"Highly Paid" Examples: Declassified documents have referred to specific individuals, such as Clay Shaw, as a "highly paid CIA contract source".

Distinction from Officers: Unlike Staff Operations Officers (who are full-time employees), contract sources usually do not receive standard government employee benefits.

Distinction from Assets: While the terms are sometimes used interchangeably, a contract source is technically "contracted" (paid via a formal agreement), whereas an asset is a broader term for anyone providing information, which might be done through coercion or voluntary cooperation rather than a contract.

The CIA's use of contractors has been subject to oversight, with inspectors general noting in the past that the agency relies heavily on these individuals to fulfill mission requirements.

---30---

So, should we trust the CIA historian on Clay Shaw, or...some guys posting online?

I am not sure. 

But I lean to the CIA historian. I may follow up.

"Justice Admits Error in Shaw-Bertrand Tie"/George Lardner

"The Department of Justice acknowledged yesterday that it goofed in ever suggesting that Clay Shaw was the mysterious "Clay Bertrand" sought after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Attorney General Ramsey Clark too responsibility for the snafu in a statement issued by a Department spokesman. Clark, the spokesman said, felt that justice would best be served by the embarrassing admission.




https://ia801206.us.archive.org/35/items/nsia-ClarkRamseyStatementsOnShaw/nsia-ClarkRamseyStatementsOnShaw/Clark%20Ramsey%20On%20Shaw%2008.pdf

see all the ducks go in a row. 

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."

That's why so many ignorant people cherish false-defector-in-place in Geneva in 1962 / false (or possibly rogue) physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964, Yuri Nosenko -- because he said the KGB had nothing to do with former U-2 radar operator Oswald during the two-and-one-half years he lived half-a-mile from a KGB school in Minsk.

He could say whatever he wants. How about some evidence?

-- Fred

Evidence of what, Fweddy?

Max Holland does NOT accept what the historian wrote.

The segregated collection is online. You can search it yourself. There is no CIA document, except this one, that refers to a "contract source."

It is obviously a mistake.

The document was made by staff, not by McDonald himself.

Paul Hoch found another error in the document.

From my post:

It is important to note the McDonald summary document in question (which is factually unreliable for reasons apart from its description of Shaw) was not prepared contemporaneously during Shaw’s years of service to the Agency, but decades later. It was compiled for the purpose of describing a collection of assassination-related documents the Agency was preparing to release at the order of then CIA Director Robert Gates, months before the Assassination Records Collection Act became law. All of this material was given to the HSCA.

As for the document's reliability, researcher Paul Hoch has found another example of where this document was wrong. It refers to "records relating to Gilberto Alvarado, who maintained that he witnessed Cubans passing Oswald cash at a party on the night before the assassination." In fact, this description is obviously a confused mashup of two allegations that were separately made: one by Gilberto Alvarado in 1963 (which he ultimately retracted), and another, made later, by Elena Garro de Paz.

A different page in the 1992 document correctly describes Alvarado as "the Nicaraguan who claimed he saw Lee Harvey Oswald receive cash in meetings inside Mexico City Cuban embassy."

Elena Garro de Paz claimed to have seen Oswald and two companions at a "twist party" in Mexico City.

The date given for this twist party (November 21) matches neither allegation and is obviously an error, thus suggesting that the 1992 document is not exactly a completely reliable accounting of what is in the CIA's own archive.

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-clay-shaw-a-contract-agent-for-the-cia