JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[JayUtah]

I would never claim that you are ignorant.

Please reconcile this disclaimer with the following:

As for Clay Shaw; you are being disingenuous or you don't know very much about the JFK assassination. I hope it is the latter.

You seem to be hoping I don't know much about the Kennedy assassination. Please explain how this does not equate to an accusation of ignorance. If you cannot do so, or fail to withdraw these personal accusations, you stand a good chance of having the readers here report your posts.

As I have said numerous times, accusations of ignorance are an unwelcome but ubiquitous feature of JFK conspiracy argumentation. Please take care to curb them.

It doesn't matter if the document is from the Garrison case, I was only addressing one element.

Context matters significantly. Garrison accused Shaw of masterminding the Kennedy assassination for, or in connection with, the CIA. Therefore an accurate depiction of the Shaw-CIA connection, in the face of such accusations, is entirely salient. The memo you cited was exactly that depiction.

Secondly,I am "adamantly" going in this direction because you don't always respond to a question.

I always respond to questions. However I rarely give the answer the other person fervently hopes for. Such is the case now.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

Then you have no position on the Kennedy assassination?

 

[JTF]

Their Burden

Lad's talking points match Garrison's case against Shaw, Ferrie, and the Military Industrial Complex for irrelevance. As I stated in a prior post, Shaw's connection or lack thereof with the CIA proves what, exactly? In addition, what is the DIRECT link between Shaw's alleged ties to the CIA with the assassination of JFK? Conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that the burden is on them to prove that Shaw, Ferrie, Ruby, Lyndon Johnson, and my uncle Frank, were involved in JFK's murder.

 

[ladmo]

I see no mention of a "contract" either in this document or in the CIA memo. Both sources indicate that Shaw furnished information to the CIA -- specifically to the DCS (an office of the CIA that received such reports from civilians not otherwise associated with the agency) on a number of occasions. Your latest link specifically uses the word "volunteered" to describe Shaw's activity. The CIA memo used the words "in touch."

No one has disputed that there was contact between Claw Shaw and an office of the CIA. However, the nature of this relationship is what is in question. Why have you and the conspiracy theorists consistently used other (and considerably stronger) words to characterize it?

You may not be familiar with the CIA process; Allen Dulles, in executive sessions of the WC, said you are either under contract, an unacknowledged agent, or not associated with the CIA.

 

[JayUtah]

Lad's talking points match Garrison's case against Shaw, Ferrie, and the Military Industrial Complex for irrelevance.

Or for sheer non sequitur appeal.

The record shows that between the mid-1940s and the mid-1950s Clay Shaw, in his capacity as a traveling business man, passed information on a voluntary basis to an office of the CIA set up to receive such intelligence. Those who dispute Garrison's case do not contest this fact.

The record further shows that the CIA was initially reluctant to disclose its previous connection to Shaw (during pre-trial) for fear Shaw would be endangered and for fear the DSC program would be rendered ineffective. Given that these are the same logical and respected reasons for withholding operational security we use today, the reluctance need not have any nefarious further purpose. Again, those who dispute Garrison's case do not contest this fact either.

Notwithstanding these concessions, the conspiracy theorists always seem to present the same materials to support that there was some other connection to Shaw, and some other Shaw activity, up to and including plotting assassinations many years after Shaw stopped talking to the CIA. It's a sort of "smoke, therefore fire" argument. The line of reasoning seems to go: "Shaw was involved with the CIA, therefore any story we want to tell about Shaw and the CIA is automatically supported by the fact of that involvement."

 

[JayUtah]

You may not be familiar with the CIA process...

"I know more about the Kennedy assassination than you do, neener-neener."

Honestly, cut it out.

Allen Dulles, in executive sessions of the WC, said you are either under contract, an unacknowledged agent, or not associated with the CIA.

That's an inference, not evidence.

Does Dulles include the DCS, which was deliberately set up on a different sort of footing? How do you know? What were the terms of Shaw's contract? Did he receive any consideration for his "voluntary" contributions to the DCS? Does Dulles or anyone else with the CIA specifically identify Shaw as "under contract" or "an unacknowledged agent?"

 

[BStrong]

Clay Shaw was under contract with the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-...udies/studies/fall_winter_2001/article02.html

The DCS was then and now a one-way street of questions asked by a CIA officer of a knowledgeable source, and that Shaw was - he was not an intelligence officer, he was a source.

If you read Crumpton's book, The Art of Intelligence, he goes into some detail about the program post-9/11.

 

[BStrong]

You may not be familiar with the CIA process; Allen Dulles, in executive sessions of the WC, said you are either under contract, an unacknowledged agent, or not associated with the CIA.

And that is pretty much it, but that doesn't infer that Shaw was an intelligence officer.

Sitting down and answering questions or providing a written report or photos taken on vacation or business doesn't make someone an intelligence officer. Even getting per diem or a honorarium doesn't make one an intelligence officer.

Graduating from the Farm doesn't even guarantee that one is a working intelligence officer - many are called, few are chosen, and Shaw wasn't anything other than a source.

 

[JayUtah]

Here is the relevant paragraph from the report of the Commission on CIA Activities Within the United States, discussing the organization, procedure, and limitations of the DCS division.

"The success of the CIA in collecting such information is entirely dependent upon the voluntary cooperation of the American public. The CIA contends, and the Commission has found no evidence to the contrary, that it neither exerts any pressure to elicit cooperation nor promises or grants favors in return for information. Sources of information are not compensated, but on the rare occasions the Agency will pay a portion of a proven source's travel expenses to an area where his presence might fulfill intelligence requirements." (Report to the President, GPO 1975, p. 210)

So the DCS has no power to compel any of its informants to provide information. It gives them no reward. It explicitly requires their "voluntary cooperation." To me that sounds like exactly the opposite of a contract. At least in the United States, a contract must promise "consideration" in order to be valid.

Clay Shaw was a CIA informant, but there is no evidence whatsoever that he had any sort of contract with the CIA, such as would have bound or compelled him to undertake any activity on the agency's behalf. As such he would be no more an operative of the CIA that an Afghan local who tells a CIA agent where the Taliban are hiding. There is no evidence of any association of any kind whatsoever between the CIA and Shaw after 1956. There is no evidence whatsoever that Shaw ever received any compensation or consideration from the CIA at any time.

 

[JayUtah]

You may not be familiar with the CIA process; Allen Dulles, in executive sessions of the WC, said...

There were 13 executive sessions of the Warren Commission. Please identify by date the session in which Dulles is alleged to have made this statement.

 

[ladmo]

"I know more about the Kennedy assassination than you do, neener-neener."

Honestly Jay, you are out of your league; if you had a modicum of knowledge in regards to the Warren Commission you would not act like you do.

Does Dulles include the DCS, which was deliberately set up on a different sort of footing? How do you know? What were the terms of Shaw's contract? Did he receive any consideration for his "voluntary" contributions to the DCS? Does Dulles or anyone else with the CIA specifically identify Shaw as "under contract" or "an unacknowledged agent?"

First, how do I know what? Second, terms of the contract are absolutely meaningless... again, you show your lack of knowledge. The FBI and CIA completely disavows various operations; the idea of "plausible denial" stays intact. Helms specifically says that Shaw provided information to the CIA. Your complete misunderstanding and total lack of reading of the WC report shows in your questions. If you would have read ALL of the Commission report, hearing testimony, executive sessions, evidence... you would never have had asked the questions you did.

You can't BS your way through this.

 

[ladmo]

There were 13 executive sessions of the Warren Commission. Please identify by date the session in which Dulles is alleged to have made this statement.

You may wish to read them prior to asking questions. Since you have to ask what Executive Session it was, show your absence of knowledge. I would rather have you deny that it ever took place and then I will be happy to show you where it did. Instead, I will stay with your tact and never provide the exact link. Please, please say that Dulles never said it. That would make my day but until you provide a modicum of understanding, you are not worth the time spent on this subject.

I find your stance quite amusing as you provide absolutely zero in the way of supportive documentation. You provide quips and fallacious comments but nothing that advances the subject.

 

[ladmo]

Lad's talking points match Garrison's case against Shaw, Ferrie, and the Military Industrial Complex for irrelevance. As I stated in a prior post, Shaw's connection or lack thereof with the CIA proves what, exactly? In addition, what is the DIRECT link between Shaw's alleged ties to the CIA with the assassination of JFK? Conspiracy theorists ignore the fact that the burden is on them to prove that Shaw, Ferrie, Ruby, Lyndon Johnson, and my uncle Frank, were involved in JFK's murder.

Shaw may be immaterial, his role doesn't mean that much to me. The known fact that the Government and Shaw lied about his role is enough to show that what we get in the way of information from the Government is suspect. Don't minimize the fact that JEH announced that LHO was the lone gunman within 23 hours of the assassination. The outcome was predetermined...

 

[ladmo]

Please reconcile this disclaimer with the following:

​

You seem to be hoping I don't know much about the Kennedy assassination. Please explain how this does not equate to an accusation of ignorance. If you cannot do so, or fail to withdraw these personal accusations, you stand a good chance of having the readers here report your posts.

let me make this perfectly clear to all readers; you do not know very much about the JFK situation, you have shown that on numerous posts.

As I have said numerous times, accusations of ignorance are an unwelcome but ubiquitous feature of JFK conspiracy argumentation. Please take care to curb them.

You are not the Judge, you need to have a cursory understanding at the minimum and you have not reached that level.

Context matters significantly. Garrison accused Shaw of masterminding the Kennedy assassination for, or in connection with, the CIA. Therefore an accurate depiction of the Shaw-CIA connection, in the face of such accusations, is entirely salient. The memo you cited was exactly that depiction.

Shaw was associated with the CIA, during the Garrison trial, Shaw and the Government said he was not associated with the CIA. Through FOIA documents have been disclosed to show the opposite and the CIA has officially come out to admit it (see the link the I provided and you read).

I always respond to questions. However I rarely give the answer the other person fervently hopes for. Such is the case now.

Wonderful, you provide "wordsmithing" to show the distinction between "respond" and "answer". I believe you would say those are "weasel" words... But if you can't answer "yes" or "no" just admit it.

 

[abaddon]

Honestly Jay, you are out of your league; if you had a modicum of knowledge in regards to the Warren Commission you would not act like you do.

I thought that there were a modicum of yanks who at least had some semblance of rational thought. I was right. However, you are not among their number.

[/QUOTE]First, how do I know what?[/QUOTE]No idea. How you you know what about what?

Second, terms of the contract are absolutely meaningless... again, you show your lack of knowledge.

What contract?

The FBI and CIA completely disavows various operations; the idea of "plausible denial" stays intact.

Well if they had nothing to do with it, is that not what the might say?

Helms specifically says that Shaw provided information to the CIA.

Yup. and when a cop walks down you street, anything you say can be construed as providing info to the MAN.

Your complete misunderstanding and total lack of reading of the WC report shows in your questions.

But you have not read it. All you have is what you have been told. You are a drone.

If you would have read ALL of the Commission report, hearing testimony, executive sessions, evidence... you would never have had asked the questions you did.

You can't BS your way through this.

Yet you have not read it. why?

 

[Iamme]

All i know is.....i`m spooked by the ``Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences``.

 

[Tolls]

You may wish to read them prior to asking questions. Since you have to ask what Executive Session it was, show your absence of knowledge.

Dodgy McDodge from Dodge City...

 

[BStrong]

Shaw didn't divulge that he was a CIA source, how do we get from closed mouth to conspiracy to commit murder?

 

[I Ratant]

All i know is.....i`m spooked by the ``Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences``.

.
Lemme spook you some more..
Look up all the past famous assassinations, and note the names of the principals involved.
Do you know anyone with any of those -same- names?
BEWARE!!!!!

 

[A'isha]

You may wish to read them prior to asking questions. Since you have to ask what Executive Session it was, show your absence of knowledge. I would rather have you deny that it ever took place and then I will be happy to show you where it did. Instead, I will stay with your tact and never provide the exact link. Please, please say that Dulles never said it. That would make my day but until you provide a modicum of understanding, you are not worth the time spent on this subject.

How odd. It should be a simple matter for you to provide the date of the Executive Session where Dulles said these things. Why don't you do that?