Why we are called "conspiracy theorists" ?

[Jeannon Kralj]

This may be old hat to many but it was news to me. I learned today of the 1967 document put out by the CIA to the media to instruct them on how to counter those increasing numbers of people who were questioning the Warren Report, the official story of the JFK assassination.  I do not have a good government website link to this document but I have no doubt this is the real deal.

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_al...

 

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", this document is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960, marked "PSYCH" for presumably Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.


RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the Warren Commission made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)


4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:


a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider. The assassination is sometimes compared (e.g., by Joachim Joesten and Bertrand Russell) with the Dreyfus case; however, unlike that case, the attack on the Warren Commission have produced no new evidence, no new culprits have been convincingly identified, and there is no agreement among the critics. (A better parallel, though an imperfect one, might be with the Reichstag fire of 1933, which some competent historians (Fritz Tobias, AJ.P. Taylor, D.C. Watt) now believe was set by Vander Lubbe on his own initiative, without acting for either Nazis or Communists; the Nazis tried to pin the blame on the Communists, but the latter have been more successful in convincing the world that the Nazis were to blame.)

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent--and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) and less on ballistics, autopsy, and photographic evidence. A close examination of the Commission's records will usually show that the conflicting eyewitness accounts are quoted out of context, or were discarded by the Commission for good and sufficient reason.

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy. And as one reviewer pointed out, Congressman Gerald R. Ford would hardly have held his tongue for the sake of the Democratic administration, and Senator Russell would have had every political interest in exposing any misdeeds on the part of Chief Justice Warren. A conspirator moreover would hardly choose a location for a shooting where so much depended on conditions beyond his control: the route, the speed of the cars, the moving target, the risk that the assassin would be discovered. A group of wealthy conspirators could have arranged much more secure conditions.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other. Actually, the make-up of the Commission and its staff was an excellent safeguard against over-commitment to any one theory, or against the illicit transformation of probabilities into certainties.

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service.

f. As to charges that the Commission's report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that "more than ten people have died mysteriously" can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes; the Commission staff questioned 418 witnesses (the FBI interviewed far more people, conduction 25,000 interviews and re interviews), and in such a large group, a certain number of deaths are to be expected. (When Penn Jones, one of the originators of the "ten mysterious deaths" line, appeared on television, it emerged that two of the deaths on his list were from heart attacks, one from cancer, one was from a head-on collision on a bridge, and one occurred when a driver drifted into a bridge abutment.)


5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission's Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Source:

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/assassination...

 

The above link does not work for me.

 

[Thoth II]

I have this recent years made Brad Meltzer's tv show my "case study" of a master disinfo. op., and Meltzer is definitiely a smooth agency op.  One thing I've discovered in this "case study" is that these master ops have a long term propoganda strategy, one thing they do is use the "kook" or "nutjob" label in direct proportion to the craziness of the subject.  For example, on things that are firm science like JFK, 911, etc., he and his team do subtle and not-so-subtle put downs of these ideas and people.  But as you get to the more way out stuff like UFOs, then they embrace it .  Very clever stuff.

[Jeannon Kralj]

 

 

Yes, it is very clever stuff.   I protect myself by not watching TV except real old movie on a friend's TV every now and then.  I say "protect myself" because this stuff is indeed subtle and sly and I can get sucked in by it if I am not constantly on guard.

 

One thing I find kind of curious is that people who generally can be described as adhering to what are call ed "liberal" or "left wing" ideas seemed strong and unanimous at the time of the JFK assassination that we were not being told the truth and that it did involve some sort of "conspiracy" though they generally did not use that word.  I have an entire family that are of this ideology, but they sort of insist that JFK assassination was a 100 percent MAFIA (someone named Marcellos in Florida I think) operation.  They still do not seem to get it that it was the CIA that made it happen, I guess with the help of the MAFIA who they had a deal with.  And they still do not seem to recognize the deep pervasive corruption of the entire federal apparatus.

 

But these same apparently left winger people when it came to 9-11 were the first to call me a "conspiracy theorist" and they routinely tried to shut down discussion of 9-11 and 9-11 truth finding by calling certain of us "nut jobs" and "nut cases" and "conspiracy theorists".  Many of the early 9-11 truth groups and sites seemed to like to label certain 9-11 truth seekers with such terms or similar epithets. 

 

Another thing that I have learned to be wary of is all this rhetoric about "freedom" and "liberties" and the "Bill of Rights" and "the Constituion" and "human rights" and "civil rights" and silver and gold acquisition.

 

The very definitions of those words and terms have been gradually changed over almost the entire last century and I just now wonder if a lot of the "patriot" talk show hosts, and even people like Judge Andrew Napolitano (on Fox News) and even Ron Paul are really aiming for what is right and good for the people.  I am not a "collectivist" but I do believe in something called "the common good."  I guess people would call me a communist but I am not.

I am not at all sure that the USA was set up with the best kind of checks and balances and best chance of not allowing oligarchs to take over and run things.

 

 

[Thoth II]

yes Jeannon, one thing the establishment media made very certain of was that after JFK they defined the game rules, the boundaries of debate, and this "left-right" thing was their clever solution.  This gets people sucked into the game of "red" vs. "blue" states, and diverts their attention from real critical thinking.  That is why I believe in Dr. Fetzer's approach, his background is in teaching/research in philosophy, critical thinking, avoidance of logical fallacies, and scientific method.  He rigorously applies this to all his topics, and holds the common fools to this standard.  Euphemisms are the banal words of the common sheep.  

[Jeannon Kralj]

 

 

Yes, Dr. Fetzer endures because he has applied logic, science and common sense in a superior way to all that he chooses to investigate.  I guess that is why Dr. Fetzer has not been invited to any scholarly, university style, formal debates of late on the JFK assassination or 9-11.  This pretty much proves to me that he has been locked out by the scripted politically correct and corrupt.

 

I read today in one of Dr. Fetzer's JFK articles that

 

"

Governor Connally

was instrumental in

making a change to

the motorcade route

on November 18,

1963, four days

before the event.

Normally, a

motorcade route,

once fixed, is never

changed, so the

Secret Service can

check every building

and screen its

occupants. This

change brought the

President past the

Texas School Book

Depository Building.

 

 

Now that one blew my mind.  I had no idea John Connally may have been in on it.  I have yet to research that but I am very curious.   

 

 

 

 

[Thoth II]

this latest show of Decoded, Meltzer blames recently natural catastrophes on global warming and the Mayan calendar 2012.  I think he is feeding us a line of agency disinfo. to divert attention off the role of Haarp, ; I can't believe that big facility is for study anything, it is a large power center for beaming energy to various parts of the plates and atmosphere.

In an eerie conclusion, Meltzer says, "the future is unpredictably, disaster always strikes" OMG sounds like he is reading right out of the globalists depopulation playbook.  And this from a guy who all season has been bashing conspiracy theorists as nutjobs.

[Jeannon Kralj]

 The History Channel is a total psyop disinfo vehicle and was clearly without doubt so beginning 9-11-01.  Thoth, I hope you wean yourself off of History Channel and TV altogether.  You will like the results in your life.   Note my recent posting about Nick Begich who is supposed to be the alternative media's long-time expert on HAARP.  Seems to be peddling himself as a Ph.D. without proof.  We will get no truth about HARRP.

 

http://www.rense.com/general62/hist.htm

[Thoth II]

Jeannon,

good advice.  I'll have to go into withdrawal, I was weaned on 1960s TV, Bewitched, and even Walter Cronkite, so it'll be very hard for me, as I'm a creature of habit.  But yes, I must get off it someday, it is no good psychologically, and the oligarchs really did take it over for a Joseph Goebbels style propoganda for the uninitiated.

One group of "kids", that I know are called skeptics, although a leading member is in his 40s, is young, but he still acts like a kid, leads legions of these youth today into buying the dark sides disinfo., hook line, and sinker.  Meltzer's crew I believe is in this young group who are chronologically older but still childish in their thinking; the woman on there, I swear I've seen my 8 year old niece give the same disorientated looks that 40ish woman does, total childish coginitive dissonance.  Houston, we have a problem..

[Jeannon Kralj]

 

 

Found a photo of how this doucment in its orginal format here....

 

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do;jsessio...

 

(This is a research site devoted to research of the JFK assassination.  Basic membership to the site is free. )

 

The word conspiracy is mentioned 14 times, twice in conjunction with the word theory or theorist. Some have said that the term"conspiracy theorist" as pejorative term did not exist before this memo went out (January 1967).

 

Also, the document mentions the term "asset" five times.  "Assets" of the CIA in the media are  the recipients of the document.  The CIA is not supposed to operate within the USA.   In the late 60s, syndicated and widely read columnist Jack Anderson openly and routinely questioned the validity of the Warren Report.