On The Trail Of Delusion

[Fred Litwin]

I am just saying that at the trial. Shaw was only asked if he worked for teh CIA. His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked
if he had any connections with the CIA.

fred

[Jon Banks]

I am just saying that at the trial. Shaw was only asked if he worked for teh CIA. His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked
if he had any connections with the CIA.

fred

It's true in some circumstances that CIA informants and contractors don't work "for" the CIA.

But if someone is wittingly working/collaborating "with" the CIA, it's a distinction without difference.

And as Steve pointed out, it would be even clearer if we're talking about a businessman connected to the intelligence services of one of our adversaries. 

[Jerry Freeman]

Of course, Shaw was correct. He had not worked for the CIA.

Nice of you to take his word for it.

  His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked if he had any connections with the CIA.
 

I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie  professional spies.
  Are you a spy? Who is going to admit--yeah sure I'm a spy...no biggie.  Would that not be really kind of stupid?
The ceremonious conclusion from the Shaw trial ---Shaw is acquitted---therefore there must have not been a conspiracy in the assassination after all
I can't help but notice that this same dumbass mentality still prevails.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Nice of you to take his word for it.
I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie  professional spies.
  Are you a spy? Who is going to admit--yeah sure I'm a spy...no biggie.  Would that not be really kind of stupid?
The ceremonious conclusion from the Shaw trial ---Shaw is acquitted---therefore there must have not been a conspiracy in the assassination after all
I can't help but notice that this same dumbass mentality still prevails.

Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?

No one that I've ever read on "my side" of this question of who killed Kennedy has stated that because Shaw didn't conspire with Oswald and Ferrie and others, as Garrison claimed, that that proves no other  conspiracy occurred. Certainly no one in this thread. That's not just a strawman argument it's an invisible strawman at that.

Maybe I need to get out more.

To add: the most influential, for good or bad, pro-conspiracy work on the assassination was Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." Which promoted the Garrison claim that Shaw conspired with others to kill JFK. The reason many lone assassin believers focus on the matter is largely because of this (and the fact that Garrison was a disgrace who smeared and ruined numerous innocent lives). This was not some obscure claim here; this was a major movie that was seen by millions around the world.

[Jon Banks]

Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?

No one that I've ever read on "my side" of this question of who killed Kennedy has stated that because Shaw didn't conspire with Oswald and Ferrie and others, as Garrison claimed, that that proves no other  conspiracy occurred. Certainly no one in this thread. That's not just a strawman argument it's an invisible strawman at that.

Maybe I need to get out more.

To add: the most influential, for good or bad, pro-conspiracy work on the assassination was Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." Which promoted the Garrison claim that Shaw conspired with others to kill JFK. The reason many lone assassin believers focus on the matter is largely because of this (and the fact that Garrison was a disgrace who smeared and ruined numerous innocent lives). This was not some obscure claim here; this was a major movie that was seen by millions around the world.

‘JFK’ is still one of the best political thrillers in American film history in my honest opinion. But I don’t think most people view it as a documentary. It’s very easy to find fact-checks of stuff in the movie around the web. Also, the wikipedia articles on the Kennedy assassination have an anti-conspiratorial tone in my opinion and I assume Wikipedia is where most people go to look up that sort of thing nowadays.

On the bright side, Stone’s film led to the ARRB and JFK records act (that Biden voted for in the Senate).

[Jerry Freeman]

Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?.... it's an invisible strawman at that.

Nowhere did I mention that "it proves". Re-writing things that I didn't. Typical of the parrots. 

[Fred Litwin]

Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA?
The Oliver Stone documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, makes the claim that Clay Shaw was a "highly valued contract  agent" of the CIA." An honest evaluation of the evidence says differently.

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

[Jon Banks]

Fact: The HSCA reported that Shaw was a “highly paid CIA contract source”.

Speculation: Maybe the HSCA was mistaken