The dispatch was produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide materialcountering 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 [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] 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 … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
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.
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) …
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.
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.
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
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.
That is the First sign of weak critical thinking - to look at sources first instead of critically parsing the information. Sources should be looked at for bias, but the information withing should be analyzed and though about critically FIRST.
Otherwise, what you are simply doing is displaying CONFIRMATION BIAS. You can simply deny any sources that go against your confirmation biases (as you are doing with Snopes currently). The left does this, the right does this, liberals do this, conservatives to this.
Are you ready to challenge your confirmation baises? And think critically? Are you open to reading (at at intellectual and academic level) about Conspiracism?
You seem to be threatened by facts/evidence that go against your beliefs - as evidenced by your long-winded 'detailed' comment (and attempt) at trying to find flaws in the above mentioned sources. That is the normal behavior/response of someone when they are faced with facts that question their deeply held beliefs. Congratulations - you are normal.
Care to tell us what you think about 9/11? I'd be interested and it would inform my future 'consumption' of your output on this site. Like go at it; free-form. What **are** your thoughts about the events prior to, on, and shortly after that day? Don't hold back.
OK, enough of this time-wasting shit. Why are you trying to hard to convince me of your beliefs and conspiracies? I really don't care what you believe. Go bonkers and believe whatever you want.
"time wasting" LOL - as if 'we' could be engaged in more time-saving or time-using anonymous conversations on Israeli atrocities from behind our keyboards. Another point of reference for how disingenuous you've become. If you can take the time to type out a reply like that, why can't you also just try to answer the question(s)?
Dude, you're spamming me now. Can't you get the hint that I AM NOT INTERESTED is this conversation with YOU?
Go enjoy your life and believe whatever you want - I really don't care. Why do you care so much about convincing me of your beliefs? Isn't it enough for you that you believe in them?
You literally did the exact same thing in your very first reply. LOL
Have you literally/critically parsed the information uncovered as part of a FOIA request on the nature of the term "conspiracy theory"?
Just posting links to Snopes, AP, or fucking Breitbart and Fox (for all I care) proves you're just being lazy. And that you can't take the time to elucidate and articulate your own points in your own words.
And let's stick to the topic: "conspiracy theory" - the etymology or origins. The original prevalence of the term coincides exactly with the CIA's internal memo and their infiltration of numerous "legacy" media/news outlets - and - those outlets beginning to use the term regularly.
Think again about your "argument" here - like actually take a moment to think and not just hammer out a reply.
Dude, you're tiresome - why is your ego so tightly intertwined with your beliefs in your theories? So what if you're wrong? Is it the end of the world for you? You're behaving like a flat-earther now.
OK - I'm done with this discussion - you are free to spend your time however you wish, chasing down whatever theories you need to and believing whatever keeps you emotionally sane.
LOL. AP? Snopes?
The dispatch was produced in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.
The aim of this dispatch is to provide materialcountering 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 [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:
a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] 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 … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.
b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.
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.
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) …
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.
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.
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
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.
>>"LOL. AP? Snopes?"
That is the First sign of weak critical thinking - to look at sources first instead of critically parsing the information. Sources should be looked at for bias, but the information withing should be analyzed and though about critically FIRST.
Otherwise, what you are simply doing is displaying CONFIRMATION BIAS. You can simply deny any sources that go against your confirmation biases (as you are doing with Snopes currently). The left does this, the right does this, liberals do this, conservatives to this.
Are you ready to challenge your confirmation baises? And think critically? Are you open to reading (at at intellectual and academic level) about Conspiracism?
You seem to be threatened by facts/evidence that go against your beliefs - as evidenced by your long-winded 'detailed' comment (and attempt) at trying to find flaws in the above mentioned sources. That is the normal behavior/response of someone when they are faced with facts that question their deeply held beliefs. Congratulations - you are normal.
Care to tell us what you think about 9/11? I'd be interested and it would inform my future 'consumption' of your output on this site. Like go at it; free-form. What **are** your thoughts about the events prior to, on, and shortly after that day? Don't hold back.
OK, enough of this time-wasting shit. Why are you trying to hard to convince me of your beliefs and conspiracies? I really don't care what you believe. Go bonkers and believe whatever you want.
"time wasting" LOL - as if 'we' could be engaged in more time-saving or time-using anonymous conversations on Israeli atrocities from behind our keyboards. Another point of reference for how disingenuous you've become. If you can take the time to type out a reply like that, why can't you also just try to answer the question(s)?
Dude, you're spamming me now. Can't you get the hint that I AM NOT INTERESTED is this conversation with YOU?
Go enjoy your life and believe whatever you want - I really don't care. Why do you care so much about convincing me of your beliefs? Isn't it enough for you that you believe in them?
You literally did the exact same thing in your very first reply. LOL
Have you literally/critically parsed the information uncovered as part of a FOIA request on the nature of the term "conspiracy theory"?
Just posting links to Snopes, AP, or fucking Breitbart and Fox (for all I care) proves you're just being lazy. And that you can't take the time to elucidate and articulate your own points in your own words.
And let's stick to the topic: "conspiracy theory" - the etymology or origins. The original prevalence of the term coincides exactly with the CIA's internal memo and their infiltration of numerous "legacy" media/news outlets - and - those outlets beginning to use the term regularly.
Think again about your "argument" here - like actually take a moment to think and not just hammer out a reply.
Dude, you're tiresome - why is your ego so tightly intertwined with your beliefs in your theories? So what if you're wrong? Is it the end of the world for you? You're behaving like a flat-earther now.
OK - I'm done with this discussion - you are free to spend your time however you wish, chasing down whatever theories you need to and believing whatever keeps you emotionally sane.
Have a good evening.
Nice way to dodge the pertinent questions.
Again: What do you think really happened on 9/11?
What I think is not relevant (as you've made be aware of with your comments). You are free to think whatever you want.