CIA dispatch 1035-960 "conspiracy theory"

In April 1967 the CIA sent out a memo, dispatch 1035-960, to introduce the use of the term "conspiracy theory" as a means to counter the credibility and popularity of theories concerning the assassination of JFK. It was a psychological operation to change how people thought about the different theories going around that were not in line with the official version.

And that official version deliberately was set up around a lone wolf gunman by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald. All in order to specifically not make it a conspiracy. All you then have to do is kill the guy you blamed and you can shut the whole case down.

So remember when people want to refute what you say and accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist. They are falling for a CIA trick designed to damage the credibility of (unofficial)conspiracy theories. Because the official versions about the 9/11 or 7/7 attacks are in fact conspiracy theories. Only they will never use that term in relation to the official version. A conspiracy just means that more then one person work together in secret to achieve something. So that's everything done by more then one person that isn't open to the public.

here is the dispatch itself:
" 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 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 [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."

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 theories