CIA Instructions to Media Assets

The media starts the confusion and we play along...just like 9-11 media confused us at the start. We have nowhere to get good intel...confusion sets our ways, and we start calling each other names when we go against the mainstream thread....OH WELL! take it or leave it

It also seems JFK brother did sum covering up as well

CIA Instructions to Media Assets

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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the assassination question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active [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, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein's theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane's book is much less convincing that Epstein's and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)

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

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

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

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

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

e. Oswald would not have been any sensible person's choice for a co-conspirator. He was a "loner," mixed up, of questionable reliability and an unknown quantity to any professional intelligence service. [Archivist's note: This claim is demonstrably untrue with the latest file releases. The CIA had an operational interest in Oswald less than a month before the assassination. Source: Oswald and the CIA, John Newman and newly released files from the National Archives.]

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

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

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

http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collec...k/cia-inst.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like this line;

Quote:

---

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.

---

Do you not believe the government looks into all the 9-11 stories? I'm sure the same report exist. If you are being blamed for something wouldn't you investigate it? They were just looking into the conspiracies.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51 [2]
http://www.answers.com/topic/big-lie

{{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. }}}

Conspiracy abound....If "THEY" whomever controls the dice can get away with killing a president they surly can get away with a evil plan like 911.. You only need an handfull of evil-minded beings to get the ball rolling then the rest will follow...like Hilter and his reichstag fire he only needed a few and the rest will follow(in no way comparing hitlers-germany to bushler america)...

But the media! what about the media? they are about as trusting as a possum playing dead....let me-- IF its tooo not irrelevant in todays world quote a few well-known people

"The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."
Commission On Freedom Of The Press---
"The American people should be made aware of the trend toward monopolization of the great public information vehicles and the concentration of more and more power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands."
Spiro Agnew, U. S. Vice-President, 13 November 1969

"The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses."
Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we fail to learn of lessons past then we have to repeat them---"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."
James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President


Talk about being lied to lets look at one....Santa Clause, when we were lil children we were told of a santa who brings gifts if your good or no gift if you were bad. yeah our parents tought us that as well their parents and on & on, talk about being lied too then knowing its not true as you get older, its bad enuff we had to worry about sinning and offending JESUS my gawd what shall i believe, who shall i trust.... wheres the tooth fairy when we need her...my bad just an old school stoner who may have smoked too much today:stoned: ....

No this is just the result of the paranoia from the X-Files generation. "The truth is out there!" People seem to be intreaged by the slightest amount of fiction and assume theres always a government conspiracy.

But its easier to blame the government....................maybe cause they have done more to damaged it self reputation..heace War On Drugs as an example....:silly:

As well if it dont past the truth test, if it smell like a conspiracy, it must be a conspiracy! Why would the bush administration investigate its own dealings with 911, why did they give such an hard time to anyone wanting to investigate WhatReallyHappened on that day....why they ignore ALL the warnings about an attack on the US maybe they wanted it to happen, right!

who warn them top PENTAGON OFFICIALS not to fly out on 911 i know i read that in Newsweek mag and even heard it talked about for a min on the brain tube...sooo what im ssayin is it smells like a conpiracy............Why they lie about not knowing about an attack upon the US was about to occur ..........and wheres that proof that Condi said she had........................

Damn i dont have the will to go at this again..i rather talk about In The Closet Republicans & them Commie Democraps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

As well if it dont past the truth test, if it smell like a conspiracy, it must be a conspiracy! Why would the bush administration investigate its own dealings with 911, why did they give such an hard time to anyone wanting to investigate WhatReallyHappened on that day....why they ignore ALL the warnings about an attack on the US maybe they wanted it to happen, right!

who warn them top PENTAGON OFFICIALS not to fly out on 911 i know i read that in Newsweek mag and even heard it talked about for a min on the brain tube...sooo what im ssayin is it smells like a conpiracy............Why they lie about not knowing about an attack upon the US was about to occur ..........and wheres that proof that Condi said she had........................

Damn i dont have the will to go at this again..i rather talk about In The Closet Republicans & them Commie Democraps

---

I still have questions about 9/11 yes. I believe the government faulted by having intel on the attack but did nothing to try and stop it. And if it was as you guys claim why not do it in another way that wouldn't have killed 3000 people? And why not plant WMD in Iraq to cover themselves against false CIA claims that they had them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zimzum

And if it was as you guys claim why not do it in another way that wouldn't have killed 3000 people? Profit of death ---governments have used it b4, do you think the american people and dem congresscritters would back a 100yr war if no deaths were involved..idts

And why not plant WMD in Iraq to cover themselves against false CIA claims that they had them?

---

Who said they didnt try and got caught so they had to back off it...no dont have no proof of that..but our government done stranger things b4 so i dont put it past them.......I dont think the lie that put us into Iraq is worth the lives of our military men & women

As far as the Kennedy thing, I saw a program just last week on the History channel that's whole premise was to back up the warren report. They refuted every angle of conspiracy with their "Facts" and to them it was a done deal. My problem with that is this: There are people watching the History channel that were not alive when the assisination happened, so this is the only view they have of it. It's funny how time "Heals all". The Government has changed the History books to suit its own Ideals many times. When my son was in High school, 20 years ago, The chapter on Viet Nam was one paragraph that basically said this: Viet Nam, an unpopular war in Southeast Asia where 52,000 Americans Died! End of story. How does that fit into History? I say Bah-Humbug to the History Channel!

I bet you they did find WMD's in Iraq, they were probably ours and we were just recovering them after we sold them to an extremist group hoping to fuel a war between other people and they ended up not using them, then turning against us and planning on using them to blow us the fuck up. So we had to find a way to get back into the middle eastern dilema and take over some territory along the way.

Wouldn't it be funny if they found nukes and some independant party did some research and found out they were out nukes or our anthrax that we sold to them.