Archiv: CIA Document #1035-960


23.11.2023 - 06:48 [ Central Intelligence Agency / Archive.org ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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, however, addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison 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 answer 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

23.11.2023 - 06:45 [ Nachdenkseiten ]

Über den Schlagetot „Verschwörungstheoretiker“. Dargestellt am Beispiel Souveränität

(17. November 2023)

Die NachDenkSeiten-Macher sind gestern mal wieder als Verschwörungstheoretiker gebrandmarkt worden. Einfach so, ohne Beleg, nicht dank eigener Recherche, sondern mit Berufung auf (nicht genannte) Dritte. Eine Rückfrage beim Autor ergab: Er beruft sich auf Äußerungen des früheren Mitherausgebers Lieb, die in diesem Artikel zitiert werden. Beklagt wird beispielsweise, dass wir auf den NachDenkSeiten in Bezug auf manche Personen von „Einflussagenten“ sprechen und die CIA für sehr einflussreich auch hierzulande halten. Inhaltlich geht es dabei um die auf den NachDenkSeiten gelegentlich bezweifelte Souveränität unseres Landes. Auch bei meiner letzten Diskussionsveranstaltung am vergangenen Mittwoch bin ich danach gefragt worden, wie es um die Souveränität unseres Landes bestellt sei.

11.09.2023 - 22:24 [ Central Intelligence Agency / Archive.org ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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, however, addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison 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 answer 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

11.09.2023 - 20:24 [ New York Times ]

Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report

(December 26, 1977, Page 32)

“Conspiracy theories,” the cable went on, “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 for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit circulation of such claims in other countries.”

The C.I.A. was careful to caution its stations overseas not to initiate a discussion “of the assassination question” where such a discussion was “not already taking place.” But where such discussions were under way, C.I.A. officers abroad were directed to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors,” and to “employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics.”

17.11.2022 - 10:14 [ Central Intelligence Agency / Archive.org ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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, however, addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with liaison 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 answer 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

17.11.2022 - 10:05 [ Michael Butter, Professor of American Literary and Cultural History, University of Tübingen / Yahoo.com ]

There‘s a conspiracy theory that the CIA invented the term ‚conspiracy theory‘ – here‘s why

(March 16, 2020)

One may find the CIA’s attempt to influence public opinion problematic. But there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, let alone introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph:

Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organisation, for example, by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us.

28.03.2022 - 08:08 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

28.03.2022 - 07:49 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Ausgerechnet der „1. April“ ziert als Datum das CIA-Dokument 1035-960, in welchem die CIA 1967 den Begriff „Conspiracy Theory“ – „Verschwörungstheorie“ – einführte. Sie reagierte damit auf das verbreitete Unbehagen über die offizielle Interpretation des Kennedy-Attentats. Nach Präsentation des Warren-Reports, der maßgeblich von CIA-Mastermind Allen Dulles geprägt war, erschien eine Welle von Büchern, die bei damals 46% der US-Bürger Zweifel an der Alleintäterschaft Oswalds verursachte.

25.10.2021 - 06:27 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Ausgerechnet der „1. April“ ziert als Datum das CIA-Dokument 1035-960, in welchem die CIA 1967 den Begriff „Conspiracy Theory“ – „Verschwörungstheorie“ – einführte. Sie reagierte damit auf das verbreitete Unbehagen über die offizielle Interpretation des Kennedy-Attentats. Nach Präsentation des Warren-Reports, der maßgeblich von CIA-Mastermind Allen Dulles geprägt war, erschien eine Welle von Büchern, die bei damals 46% der US-Bürger Zweifel an der Alleintäterschaft Oswalds verursachte.

16.07.2021 - 16:56 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

28.06.2021 - 13:48 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

28.06.2021 - 13:36 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

24.11.2020 - 21:20 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

24.11.2020 - 21:18 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

11.09.2020 - 11:16 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

11.09.2020 - 11:07 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

16.06.2020 - 08:32 [ Rationalgalerie ]

Verfassungs-Schutz Auf der Jagd nach Verschwörungstheoretikern

Das Amt für Verfassungs-Schutz sollte dem Namen nach die Verfassung schützen. Als die West-Alliierten den Inlandsgeheimdienst der Bundesrepublik vor 70 Jahren gründeten, war er nichts anderes als ein Instrument im Kalten Krieg zwischen Ost und West: Er sollte die Kommunisten in der alten Bundesrepublik kontrollieren und klein halten. Sie galten nach der westlichen Doktrin als fünfte Kolonne des Hauptfeindes, der DDR und der Sowjetunion. Zugleich wurde das Amt zur neuen Heimat der alten Nazis: Lange nach dem Krieg – noch 1963 – wurden 16 Mitarbeiter als ehemalige Mitglieder von Gestapo, SS oder SD offiziell festgestellt. Die Dunkelziffer lag weitaus höher. Der Feind stand links und Nazis waren willkommen.

In dieser Tradition steht derselbe Schutz, der in Corona-Zeiten „Falschmeldungen und Verschwörungstheoretiker“ observieren soll. Das jedenfalls steht auf der Tagesordnung der Innenminister der Länder und des Bundes, wenn sie sich vom 17.06.2020 bis 19.06.2020 in Erfurt zu ihrer 212. Sitzung treffen.

13.06.2020 - 05:13 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

08.05.2020 - 18:02 [ Snopes.com ]

Did the CIA Invent the Term ‘Conspiracy Theory’?

(16.03.2020)

One may find the CIA’s attempt to influence public opinion problematic. But there is not a single sentence in the document that indicates the CIA intended to weaponise, let alone introduce the term “conspiracy theory” to disqualify criticism. In fact, “conspiracy theory” in the singular is never used in the document. “Conspiracy theories” in the plural is only used once, matter-of-factly in the third paragraph:

08.05.2020 - 17:58 [ Central Intelligence Agency / JFKlancer.com ]

CIA Document 1035-960 – Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

(01. April 1967)

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.

(…)

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 [business] 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 [negate] 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, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

(…)

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.)

01.05.2020 - 14:58 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

30.03.2020 - 13:31 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

26.02.2020 - 16:29 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

09.05.2019 - 19:39 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(04.04.2017)

Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

09.05.2019 - 19:32 [ Zero Hedge ]

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label „Conspiracy Theorists“ … to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the „Official“ Narrative

(23.02.2015)

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

06.11.2018 - 06:17 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(4.4.2017) Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

20.09.2018 - 19:39 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(4.4.2017) Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.

26.05.2018 - 13:47 [ Heise.de ]

50 Jahre „Verschwörungstheoretiker“: 1967 verteilte die CIA eine geheime Handreichung zur Diskreditierung von Zweiflern

(4.4.2017) Das Dokument endete mit der Aufforderung, es zu zerstören, wenn es nicht mehr gebraucht werde. Nicht alle Exemplare wurden zerstört, vielmehr wurde der Dispatch 1976 auf Betreiben der New York Times freigegeben.