In this video I go over the very interesting topic, and that is dive into the topic of “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” by taking a look at the CIA’s infamous 1967 declassified memo during the John F. Kennedy (JFK) Assassination Warren Commission investigation. The memo, which was first declassified through a 1976 Freedom of Information Access (FOIA) by the New York Times, reveals that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) underwent a secret psychological operation (PsyOp) through a coordinated propaganda campaign to discredit and ridicule critics of the Warren Commission report with hopes of quelling rising distrust of the government by the public. In my opinion this is very contradictory, which if the public knew of these secret PsyOp programs to spread deliberate propaganda and attack criticism of the government, then the public would be in an up-roar, as they should be!
The CIA 1967 memo information and links to view it are shown below:
- Title: Countering Criticism of the Warren Report
- Document Number: 1035-960
- Classification: PSYCH for Psychological Operation and CS for Clandestine Services
- Special Note: “Destroy When No Longer Needed”
- Document: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53510
- Document (PDF): http://tinyurl.com/cia1967memo
Also interesting to note, while recording my initial attempt at this video yesterday, I fell victim to the dreaded #MandelaEffect!! This is because many websites, books, and videos mistakenly use the title “Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report” or even “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report”, which are both wrong! I’m not sure if this as just an accidental mistake (and discovery by me) or could be just another part of CIA’s disinformation propaganda campaign haha 😉
Also in this video I go over the ramifications of the CIA 1967 memo, and show concrete evidence through Google’s “Ngram” viewer that suggest the CIA’s propaganda campaign to discredit conspiracy theories in regards to the JFK assassination, as well as conspiracy theorists in general, was in full effect in the 1960s. This fact has been brushed aside and covered up by many in the mainstream media, including even Wikipedia and the CIA itself. The document explains specific instructions to quell criticisms of government “official” narrative and institutions through using “friendly” elite politicians and people embedded in major news outlets by attacking the conspiracy theorists themselves, as opposed to their actual claims. Such instructions included suggesting that conspiracy theories are the result of “Communist Propagandists” and that “large scale conspiracies” are impossible. Both of these methods are still widely used today, although now those pesky “Russians” are to blame. I also go on a long rant about the “large scale conspiracies” argument because I was #Triggered!
This is a very long, but extremely detailed look at the elaborate propaganda and disinformation strategy that the CIA, the mainstream media, and political elites uses on an almost daily basis still to this day, so make sure to watch this entire video!
View Video Notes Below!
Become a MES Super Fan - Donate - Subscribe via email - MES merchandise
Reuse of my videos:
- Feel free to make use of / re-upload / monetize my videos as long as you provide a link to the original video.
Fight back against censorship:
- Bookmark sites/channels/accounts and check periodically.
- Remember to always archive website pages in case they get deleted/changed.
Recommended Books: "Where Did the Towers Go?" by Dr. Judy Wood
Join my forums: Hive community - Reddit - Discord
Follow along my epic video series: MES Science - MES Experiments - Anti-Gravity (MES Duality) - Free Energy - PG
NOTE 1: If you don't have time to watch this whole video:
- Skip to the end for Summary and Conclusions (if available)
- Play this video at a faster speed.
-- TOP SECRET LIFE HACK: Your brain gets used to faster speed!
-- MES tutorial- Download and read video notes.
- Read notes on the Hive blockchain $HIVE
- Watch the video in parts.
-- Timestamps of all parts are in the description.Browser extension recommendations: Increase video speed - Increase video audio - Text to speech (Android app) – Archive webpages
Conspiracy Theory: CIA 1967 Memo: CIA Wikipedia MSM Propaganda and Coverup
IMPORTANT NOTE
I was actually recording this video yesterday, it was almost an hour and a half long…. annnnnd had to delete it because I fell victim to the "Mandela Effect"… Pause this video and go learn what the "Mandela Effect" theory is and then come back because I randomly came across this in this video…. YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
Note: Computer makes a copy when I move files through drag-and-drop…? WTF Anyyyywayysss!
Conspiracy Theory: CIA Wikipedia Mainstream Media Propaganda and Coverup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Retrieved: 29 April 2017Conspiracy theory
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.[3]
According to the political scientist Michael Barkun, conspiracy theories rely on the view that the universe is governed by design, and embody three principles: nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected.[1]:3–4 Another common feature is that conspiracy theories evolve to incorporate whatever evidence exists against them, so that they become, as Barkun writes, a closed system that is unfalsifiable, and therefore "a matter of faith rather than proof".
…
Currently, conspiracy theories are widely present on the Web in the form of blogs and YouTube videos, as well as on social media. Whether the Web has increased the prevalence of conspiracy theories or not is an open research question.[27] The presence and representation of conspiracy theories in search engine results has been monitored and studied, showing significant variation across different topics, and a general absence of reputable, high-quality links in the results.[28]
…
History
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event", and cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example.[16][17] As a neutral term, "conspiracy" is derived from Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe").
According to John Ayto's 20th century words, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and only acquired a pejorative connotation in the mid 1960s, implying that the advocate of the theory has a paranoid tendency to imagine the influence of some powerful, malicious, covert agency in events.[18] According to Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith's 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America,[19] the phrase conspiracy theory was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. However, according to Robert Blaskiewicz, assistant professor of critical thinking at Stockton University and skeptical activist, such claims have existed "since at least 1997", but due to having recently been promoted by deHaven-Smith, "conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority". Blaskiewicz researched the use of the term conspiracy theory and found that it has always been a disparaging term, having been used to describe "extreme hypothesis" and implausible speculation as long ago as 1870.[20][21]
MES Note: This paragraph is very badly written. It's not "according" to that professor, but rather the CIA did in fact "deploy" or use "conspiracy theory" to discredit critics.
And the arguments made by Robert Blaskiewicz are not even targeted at deHaven-Smith's book or arguments, but rather that at people that falsely mis-refernence deHaven's book.
Robert argues that "conspiracy theory" was used before the CIA memo that deHaven-Smith references, and always had a negative connotation.
DeHaven-Smith simply points out that the CIA chose that phrase to push it onto the public through hundreds of people imbedded in the media, which they did and continue to do so.
Also why doesn't the Wikipedia article just include the CIA 1967 memo?? WTF
HorribleReporting
…
Viability of conspiracy theories
Physicist David Robert Grimes published in PLOS ONE journal an estimation of time required for a conspiracy to fail given the number of people that needs to be involved.[70][71] He then calculated the maximum time before failure for several large-scale conspiracy theories:
- Moon landing hoax would require 411,000 people involved and would fail in 3.68 years;
- Climate-change fraud would require 405,000 people and would fail in 3.70 years;
- Vaccination conspiracy would require at least 22,000 people (without drug companies) and would fail in 3.15 years;
- Suppressed cancer cure conspiracy would require 714,000 people and would fail in 3.17 years.
The equations used in calculations were fine tuned using data from real conspiracies (The National Security Agency (NSA) PRISM affair, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and FBI forensic scandal).
WARNING: I go on a rant over the "maximum time before failure" papers… Triggered
The entire Wikipedia article, in my opinion, is just a hit piece on "Conspiracy Theories", especially the complete B.S. "Estimation Time of Failure", again in my opinion.
Just search for Joe Biden groping little girls chests, and other creepy stuff, which is whitewashed by Wikipedia / MSM, when they should be calling a full investigation into his private life, and then almost certainly thrown in jail, again in my opinion.
How large is that "conspiracy"?
Also same goes with the "Russian hacking" hoax, WMD hoax, White Helmets faking video footage, Assad Chemical Attack (almost certain) hoax, etc., Nikki Haley showing pictures of dead babies at the United Nations, and of course the widescale government and corporate shut down and censorship of independent media, thoughts, and free-speech…
Seriously the writers of that pathetic "conspiracy failure" paper should be ashamed of themselves, and in my opinion investigated further to see what kind of financial ties they have.
And like always they attack social media, and especially YouTube, which in my opinion is far better than any academic journal, because of the human hive mind that can up-vote / down-vote and respond in real time arguing for or against each and every point being made in a particular video.
Academic papers are hardly ever read and are sometimes hidden behind a paywall, which is beyond insane because tax-payers already fund the researchers…
If academics believe their arguments are truly valid, then they should post to social media and see what response they get….
As someone with a Bachler's in Civil Engineering and Masters in Mining Engineering, publishing my work on YouTube receives FAR more critical and insightful responses and feedback than when writing my thesis during University…
Just imagine how Oxford "University" would fair if they posted a video on YouTube with this pathetic headline:
………………………… "University"
Now imagine if this "credible" news site posted this pile of IdeologicalSubversion garbage on YouTube, or a (uncensored) forum that includes a down-vote option… DownVoteBuildsCivilizations
https://twitter.com/CassandraRules/status/858368422454931457
- CassandraRules
This is a real article…. YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
Anyways enough of a rant for me.
Actually one more note, Jimmy Savile's disgusting crimes were not "known" for decades by MI5…. Strange how that "conspiracy failure" papers didn't include that in their B.S. "formula"…
https://twitter.com/MathEasySolns/status/852407575177854977
- MathEasySolns
…. The Jimmy Savile case is enough to demand that the CIA / MI5 / Mossad / etc. be AbolishedASAP!
If you still wonder just how easily the mainstream media is controlled, then you have to watch the following video!
This video is just one of many that shows just how controlled and consolidated the media is, regardless of topic.
Now back to business!
Let's take a look at the article Wikipedia references.
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/nope_it_was_always_already_wrong
8 August 2013 by Robert BlaskiewiczNope, It Was Always Already Wrong
Recently, the claim that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was popularized in the 1960s by the CIA to discredit those who dared to question the Warren Commission has been popping up in the conspiracy-o-sphere. From the original PsyOp, so the story goes, the application of the phrase spread to encompass all sorts of nefarious doings, and now people reflexively think that all conspiracy theorists are crazy. The first version that I heard, in fact, was the claim that the term was actually invented in the 1960s, and that grabbed my attention. Really? Never appeared before the 1960s?
…
As evidence of this deliberate manipulation of language, theorists offer up a 1967 document released in 1976 via a FOIA request, Dispatch 1035-960. In short, the CIA document outlines arguments that field operatives can use to counter conspiracy theorizing abroad and advises where those arguments might have the largest effect. The document was released to the New York Times, but conspiracy theorists’ seizure of this notion, that what they do has been deliberately stigmatized by nefarious outside agents rather than by the internal flaws of their arguments, ignores both linguistic and historical reality in order to flatter their delusions.
While the notion that the phrase “conspiracy theory” was weaponized has been around since at least 1997, it recently received a boost by the Lance deHaven-Smith’s 2013 Conspiracy Theory in America, published by the University of Texas Press. So, with this stamp of apparent academic legitimacy (I have my own opinion about that, and this is not the venue to elaborate), conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority.
…
But Barrett also leans very hard on deHaven-Smith’s work:
…
Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in Americaby political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” [emphasis added]
Well, we have a claim of fact about the origins of the term “conspiracy theorist.” This is certainly something we can check up on. I will not ascribe this claim to deHaven-Smith. I don’t recall him making the claim that it was invented by the CIA, only that it was deliberately deployed by the CIA.
A quick search of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) finds that the phrase had been used in May 1964:
New Statesman 1 May 694/2 Conspiracy theorists will be disappointed by the absence of a dogmatic introduction.
This is two years before Dispatch 1035-960 appeared. If you go to the magazine, you will find that this sentence appears in an unsigned editorial, “Separateness,” about the London Magazine’s recent transition from being an exclusively literary publication to a more interdisciplinary review of the arts.
So, no. The CIA did not invent the word “conspiracy theorist.” But this made me wonder how far back I could push the use of a term like “conspiracy theory.”
MES Note: This doesn't prove that the CIA did not "invent" the word "conspiracy theorist" but only that the 1967 memo was not the first usage of the word "conspiracy theorist". It is still likely that there are unreleased documents by the CIA even before 1964 that could reference "conspiracy theorists".
…
An even older reference to “conspiracy theory” can be found in the medical literature of 1870, during a public debate about the growth of asylums and the treatment of inmates in the UK.
…
The theory of Dr. Sankey as to the manner in which these injuries to the chest occurred in asylums deserved our careful attention. It was at least more plausible that [sic] the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Reade [...]. (141)
This use of conspiracy theory, I think, is recognizable with our contemporary understanding.
What is clear is that “conspiracy theory” has always been a disparaging term. While proponents of alternative knowledge are correct in asserting that it is possible to unfairly discredit someone by calling them a “conspiracy theorist,” they must also remember that just because you are called a conspiracy theorist doesn’t mean you aren’t one.
While Robert is correct that "conspiracy theory" was used as far back as 1870 as a negative label similar to today and that "conspiracy theorist" was used prior to the CIA 1967 memo, he is wrong in saying that this "proves" the CIA didn't invent it because there may very well have been CIA documents unreleased that contain that term.
Also Robert's article, as well as the Wikipedia article, are extremely disparaging towards "conspiracy theorists" and completely miss the big picture, the CIA purposely used the negative label of "conspiracy theorist" in a coordinated campaign through people imbedded in the media to silence and ridicule all criticism of the government.
Now let's do something that Wikipedia purposely lacks, actual research:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Commission
Retrieved: 1 May 2017Warren Commission
The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, was established by President Lyndon B. Johnson through Executive Order 11130 on November 29, 1963[1] to investigate the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy that had taken place on November 22, 1963.[2]
…
The Commission took its unofficial name—the Warren Commission—from its chairman, Chief Justice Earl Warren.[8]
https://books.google.ca/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC
Lance deHaven-Smith
University of Texas Press, Apr 15, 2013 - Political Science - 260 pages
Ever since the Warren Commission concluded that a lone gunman assassinated President John F. Kennedy, people who doubt that finding have been widely dismissed as conspiracy theorists, despite credible evidence that right-wing elements in the CIA, FBI, and Secret Service—and possibly even senior government officials—were also involved. Why has suspicion of criminal wrongdoing at the highest levels of government been rejected out-of-hand as paranoid thinking akin to superstition?
Conspiracy Theory in America investigates how the Founders’ hard-nosed realism about the likelihood of elite political misconduct—articulated in the Declaration of Independence—has been replaced by today’s blanket condemnation of conspiracy beliefs as ludicrous by definition. Lance deHaven-Smith reveals that the term “conspiracy theory” entered the American lexicon of political speech to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission and traces it back to a CIA propaganda campaign to discredit doubters of the commission’s report. He asks tough questions and connects the dots among five decades’ worth of suspicious events, including the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, the attempted assassinations of George Wallace and Ronald Reagan, the crimes of Watergate, the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages deal, the disputed presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, the major defense failure of 9/11, and the subsequent anthrax letter attacks.
Sure to spark intense debate about the truthfulness and trustworthiness of our government, Conspiracy Theory in America offers a powerful reminder that a suspicious, even radically suspicious, attitude toward government is crucial to maintaining our democracy.
Page 21
Most Americans will be shocked to learn that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a propaganda program initiated in 1967. [28] This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission's report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists to criticize "conspiracy theorists" and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA told its contacts that "parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists." In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy-theory label with powerfully negative associations.
Page 116
When a story or book did appear, the CIA memo called for the agency's media voices to say that all critics of the lone-gunman scenario were implying that there had been a conspiracy and to raise questions about the conspiracy theorists'…
https://books.google.ca/books?id=TilCeCKDujQC&q=countering&hl=en#v=onepage&q=dispatch&f=false
Page 197
Note: I realized after my first attempt at recording this video yesterday, that deHaven-Smith (and many others) actually wrote the title of the memo WRONG!!
It's actually "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" and NOT "Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report"… WOW #MandelaEffect
Now let's see which websites reference this memo (in either of the two Mandela Effect versions)…
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site:cia.gov+%22countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 2 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/xcfPe
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Acia.gov+%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/8KCCN
The CIA's own website don't even have this document… WOW
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:nytimes.com+%22Countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 2 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/JIbXy
The New York Times did in fact write about the memo, although just once in 1977:
http://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/cable-sought-to-discredit-critics-of-warren-report.html
Archive: https://archive.is/eyPqn
The Central Intelligence Agency has often argued that its worldwide propaganda efforts are intended only to alter the climate of public opinion in other countries and that any “fallout” reaching the eyes and cars of Americans is both unavoidable and unintentional.
But a C.I.A. document, recently declassified under the Freedom of Information Act, provides a detailed account of at least one instance in which the agency mustered its propaganda machinery to support an issue of far more concern to Americans, and >to the C.I.A. itself, than to citizens of other countries.…
In a cable sent to some of its overseas stations and bases on April 1, 1967, C.I.A. headquarters began by recalling that “from the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.”
…
In what was perhaps a burst of professional pride, C.I.A. headquarters asked that it also be pointed out that “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.”
While the NY Times did write about the CIA Memo (I believe they were the first to obtain the FOIA document), they did not include the actual document, and the article makes up just a very small section of their paper, which I consider as under-reporting given the importance of the document.
Also interesting is on that same page 32 of the NY Times 1977 newspaper is the article with the headline: "A Worldwide Network For Dissemination of Propaganda Was Built by the C.I.A."…. AbolishTheCIA
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:nytimes.com+%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/QELS
No Mandela Effect Here… JustChecking
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:cnn.com+%22countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 5 April 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/mJSfc
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:cnn.com+%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/txYmC
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:infowars.com+%22Countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 2 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/Tm6E3
https://www.google.ca/#q=site:infowars.com+%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/x9Phn
Note the #MandelaEffect and the "Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report" MandelaEffect2
Infowars does include a reference (although not the actual document), and even had DeHaven-Smith on air for a 40 minute interview about his book! RealReporting
This is a must watch interview with deHaven-Smith!
He points out how after World War 2 there was a consolidation of the establishment in the USA and anyone bringing up criminality within the government is labeled as pushing conspiracy theories.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 2 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/cAdJw
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/ydHLq
As usual only alternative media sources contain this memo, which further shows the level of "large scale" conspiracy against providing people useful information about the government.
Again note the #MandelaEffect!! Wow
Let's take a closer look at just what may have started this #MandelaEffect…
https://www.google.ca/webhp?tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:12/31/2000&q=%22Countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 3 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/OJBeu
https://www.google.ca/webhp?tbm=#tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:12/31/2001&q=%22Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 3 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/m6fc2
It appears that shortly after making the CIA 1967 memo into digital text format (or at least just the title), there were several websites that mistakenly used "Concerning" instead of "Countering"….
I may look into more detail into the above search results, but I believe the origins of the usage of "Concerning" may be contained in one of those search results. #MandelaEffect
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site:wikipedia.org+%22Countering+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report%22
Retrieved: 2 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/ST8jY
https://www.google.ca/search?q="Concerning+Criticism+of+the+Warren+Report"
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/s5lzo
Out of ALL of Wikipedia, the only page that references the CIA Memo is the Portuguese version of the "Conspiracy Theory" article I went over above!! WOW YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
Also notice the #MandelaEffect … ON THE SAME WIKIPEDIA PAGE!!!! Wow YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
https://translate.google.ca/?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA730CA730&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&client=tw-ob#auto/en/Teoria%20da%20conspira%C3%A7%C3%A3o
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teoria_da_conspira%C3%A7%C3%A3o
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/R5smWTeoria da conspiração
…
Em seu livro Teoria da Conspiração na América, publicado em 2013, o professor da Universidade do Estado da Flórida, Lance DeHaven-Smith, afirma que a expressão foi inventada na década de 1960 pela CIA para desacreditar teorias conspiratórias sobre o assassinato do ex-presidente norte-americano John F. Kennedy[22][23].
[MES Note]: This translates to deHaven-Smith claiming that the CIA invented the "conspiracy theory" which as explained earlier, he did no such thing. RelatóriosHorríveis
…
- COUNTERING CRITICISM OF THE WARREN REPORT
- CIA Document 1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report
Reference 22 refers to: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53510
This is the photocopied version of the CIA memo through a Freedom of Information Access (FOIA) request.
Reference 23 refers to: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
This is a text version of the CIA memo.
Again note the #MandelaEffect on the TWO CONSECUTIVE REFERENCES!!! *UNBELIEVABLE
Let's take a closer look at the MaryFerrell website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ferrell
Retrieved: 1 May 2017Mary Ferrell
Mary Elizabeth McHughes Ferrell (26 October 1922 – 20 February 2004) was an American historian and independent researcher who created a large database on the John F. Kennedy assassination.
Life and career
Born in Memphis, Tennessee, she married Hubert Afton "Buck" Ferrell in 1940 and had four children. In 1957 the family moved to Dallas, Texas, where Ferrell found work as a legal secretary.
She began collecting materials on the Kennedy assassination immediately after the event.[1] Her assassination database was originally written on over 40,000 cards and included details of over 8,200 people involved in the case. These data were eventually entered into a computer. Ferrell also created a four-volume set of chronologies, covering all aspects of the assassination.[2]
Ferrell died in Dallas.[3] The Mary Ferrell Foundation, located in Ipswich, Massachusetts, is a non-profit "devoted to carrying on the legacy of Mary Ferrell, whose integrity and unwavering dedication to truth is an inspiration to many."
The Mary Ferrell Foundation (MFF) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) group engaged in an ongoing effort to bring accessible and interactive history to a new generation of critical thinkers.
With a wide topic base including the assassinations of the 1960s, the Watergate scandal, and post-Watergate intelligence abuse investigations, the MFF’s vast digital archive at www.maryferrell.org contains over 1.3 million pages of documents, government reports, books, essays, hours of multimedia, and innovative research tools.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=53510
Retrieved: 2 May 2017PDF Document: http://tinyurl.com/cia1967memo
The rest of the document contains other documents and articles pertaining to the JFK assassination investigation.
Luckily the CIA memo was transcribed into text by this website.
http://www.jfklancer.com/index.html
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/6pq7m
NOTE: This site may just be the cause of this #MandelaEffect…. I may look into this further in a later video so StayTuned!
NOTE #2: The underlined words (besides "Our Concern") were corrections I made to the JFK Lancer website which made typos in the transcription.
(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, 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. 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 Knebel article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing than 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 or 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 Van der 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, conducting 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.
A good summary of the tactics recommended by the CIA to squash criticism are listed by the following article, (even though they are mistaken when claiming the CIA created the label "conspiracy theorists" in 1967):
…
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.
…
Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:
○ Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
○ Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports
○ Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
○ Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
○ Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
○ Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
○ Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
○ Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
○ Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theoriesIn other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.
These same tactics are still used today…
https://www.google.ca/search?q=large+scale+conspiracies
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/DgttX
https://www.google.ca/search?q=russia+spread+fake+news
Retrieved: 1 May 2017
Archive: https://archive.is/H7wwS
Notice now the emphasis on "fake news"… Despicable
Still don't believe me…. Then let's just watch this video to see just how blatant the propaganda is…
HAHAHAHAHAHA Even the nickname "Crooked Hillary" is somehow a "Russian Conspiracy"….. YouCantMakeThisStuffUp
Let's take a look at some actual data of "Conspiracy Theory" being used in literature:
Note: An Ngram is a just a n-numbered phrase, i.e. "conspiracy theory" is a bigram or 2-gram
From the above Ngram graphs, it is very clear that although the "conspiracy theory" has been used as far back as in the 1870s, "conspiracy theories" as far back as 1900s, conspiracy theorist(s) in the 1960s, the total usage of these terms did not take off until the 1960s, during the JFK assassination timeline and the CIA memo being pushed to mainstream the label of "conspiracy theorist" to discredit critics.
What's also interesting is that the word "conspiracy" has dropped in relative usage through the years… interesting.
Just wanted to include this graph. May look into this further in a later video so StayTuned!
Summary and Conclusions
While the CIA did not first coin the phrase "conspiracy theory" nor the first to give it a bad connotation, the CIA nonetheless arguably were the driving force in pushing its widespread use.
Also, the phrase "conspiracy theorist" may still have been a creation of the CIA, although I have found no conclusory evidence.
My research also suggests that there is a "conspiracy" in trying to bury and sweep away the fact that the CIA 1967 memo, which illustrated the CIA's planned clandestine psychological operations to discredit conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.
In fact it is quite clear this is the case, especially with the CIA and Wikipedia websites failing to even reference the CIA memo (outside of a brief sentence through the Portuguese version of the "Conspiracy theory" article"). HorribleReporting
The mainstream media as a whole has simply ignored to mention that the CIA has pushed tactics to discredit conspiracy theories and those that push them as being conspiracy theorists with bad intentions, personal self interests, or state-actors (such as "Communist propagandists" but now likely switched to those pesky "Russians") , instead of actually addressing their claims.
Some of the tactics include getting "friendly" influential politicians and journalists embedded in major news outlets to constantly push the narrative that the government's account of events is the "official" version, and is much more credible and detailed than "conspiracy theories" pushed for personal gain to damage the government's reputation.
Even disinformation or propaganda through book reviews (and now through paid social media trolls) is a tactic pushed by the CIA.
The Ngram database by Google shows a significant increase of the terms related to conspiracy theory at around the 1960s suggesting that it is likely that the CIA disinformation campaign was in full effect and being utilized.
A common tactic that is still used today is getting influential people write, in my opinion, bogus "academic" articles on how it is mathematically impossible for "large scale conspiracies" to occur, which as always the mainstream media pushes without second-guessing the "academic" paper.
Thus it is clear that the level of CIA influenced/controlled media (and even politicians) is far reaching and those that critique the government or the CIA are ridiculed through an incredibly elaborate propaganda and disinformation campaign.
The CIA claimed they started their attack on conspiracy theorists because public opinion about the official government account of the JFK assassination was very low, and what better way to sway public opinion than by a deliberate propaganda and smear campaign against anyone that dares to question the government…. Wow Sarcasm PoliceState GovernmentKnowsBest
For a shorter video that summarizes much of what I just presented, I highly recommend watching the following video!
