Was Clay Shaw a highly paid CIA contract source?

[Tom Graves]

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."

[Lance Payette]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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?

[Tom Graves]

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?

[Lance Payette]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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.

[John Iacoletti]

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...

[Tom Graves]

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?