Monday, 28 January 2013

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

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. 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.)

The same tactics outlined here are being used with the 911 evidence. Fortunately for interested observers, the evidence proving State involvement in these sorts of crimes is damning. The official smoke screen does not work when you look at particular aspects of the case particularly the physical evidence like the magic bullet for JFK or the Molten Steel and Free fall collapse seen with the World Trade Centre demolitions on 911. That kind of evidence REFUTES the official narratives.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, January 28th, 2013.]


steven andresen said...


I want to imagine for you what, in the dark rooms Stanley Kubrick imagined for us, the masterminds of our nation's defense are thinking...

Whatever those critics might come up'll all be forgotten. It'll be forgotten because there's no place to actually bring it up. They are talking about evidence that has never, and if we have our way, will never, be brought to court. It's all moot.

But, Sir...they have a lot of evidence...? It may look damaging.

Not at all, We have a lot of evidence too. We'll make up shit. They won't be able to talk about what they got.

But, Sir...won't they sway public opinion?

So what. We've never been touched by public opinion in as long as I've been here. They can be suspicious all they want. I still have my teams of mechanics. They can fiddle with their airplanes for all I care.

Well, O.K., Sir...if you say so...

...And this is what they think. They have ways of making critics and whistle-blowers and activists become irrelevant, or disappeared.

Pretty soon critics of the Warren Commission will be as dangerous as those who said John Wilkes Booth acted on behalf of unknown Confederate leaders. Or that Roosevelt instigated WW2 through covert acts against the Japanese.

No one much cares about these claims. Pretty soon, no one will much care about the Kennedys or even 9-11.

....I am making this argument, I admit, out of a great deal of personal pessimism. I have gone through a lot of old arguments that came out on the internet about Kennedy, 9-11, etc, etc. It seems so ultimately futile.

The purpose of all these arguments has been to just wake people up and move them to do something to stop the powers that be from continuing their reigns of terror.

I am still convinced that such arguments are like pissing in the wind in a country that spends a trillion dollars a years to maintain its hegemony. The only arguments that might do anything at this point would seem to be those directs at the powers, not at those the powers abuse.

SpookyOne said...


I think if you are directing an argument at the powers one must have a pretty good argument. And if those being abused have no power, then it's hard to use the threat of insurrection in arguments directed to the elites.

You may end up arguing for better conditions for the slaves, whilst every now and again a few thousand of them are sacrificed to maintain the control system. Plus millions could be driven into poverty to facilitate the same goal.

I like the idea of an insurrection.

Being the optimist I tend to look favourably on the quote that says "Just because things have been wrong a long time does not mean it will always be so." I'm paraphrasing. It's not the exact quote.

I do recognise what you are getting at. A quote attributed to Napoleon says "It is not necessary to bury the truth, only delay it until nobody cares."

Our human psychology and memory is a dastardly thing.

Spook !