In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

George Washington's picture

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal

Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.  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.

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 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.

Here are screenshots of part of the memo:

CIA conspiracyCIA conspiracy2

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
  • 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

In 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.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?

Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?

In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.


But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.


Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.


Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.


So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).


Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.


Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.


Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).


Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.


Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.


In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.


Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.


Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.


Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

Some financial market conspiracies are real …


Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That

While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans

A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:

  • A BBC documentary shows that:

There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

  • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
  • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy

Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:

The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.

These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.


The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.

Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.

On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.

The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.

Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.

We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.

And see ...

The Troll’s Guide to Internet Disruption

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Kelley's picture

The CIA referred to "the Commission Report." That sounds like the "Warren Commission Report."

Johnson did it. The CIA helped. So did members of the Secret Service.

Lostinfortwalton's picture

If you were a detective with the Dallas Police Department and the president had been shot would you not consider the real possibility that a conspiracy was involved, that several individuals or teams, some perhaps known to each other, some not, would have been employed together to achieve the assassination? Yet we have the nearly instant decree that "Oswald acted alone". Even if Oswald was involved, which I doubt, how would even Oswald know if he acted alone? Oswald himself had the realization that he had been set up as the "patsy" to take the fall.

JoJoJo's picture

First use of term Conspiracy Theory - 1909 in American Historical Review

mayhem_korner's picture

The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories.



I read the linked post - very unconvincing, riddled with non sequitur, and shallow in its research (e.g., takes for face value the notion that Adam Smith is the "father of modern economics").  The Declaration of Independence was a response to abuse of power by men who thirsted for the liberty in the colonies.  The Constitution was (flawed) man's best effort to date to try to preserve individual sovereignty and contain human nature through a limited republic structure.  Read up on the Federalist Papers, John Locke, et al (you haven't) to understand the underpinnings of the debates going on at the time. 

These great documents were not based on conspiracy theory.  They codified what their authors thought would best protect liberty and natural law from human nature.  They knew exactly what weaknesses existed in the structure they penned, and laboured intensively over those weaknesses.  Turns out they were spot on, as the degradation of the Constitution has progressed largely along the lines they warned about.  That is not conspiracy theory - it is understanding of human nature.

disabledvet's picture

How about theorists in general?


Or shall we call them "ideators" now?

blindman's picture

in a bipolar world "conspiracy theory" is
the essence of patriotism.
get it? it is essential, a way of mind
and life that motivates every action
and consideration. an elemental necessity.
but, it is monopolized so the population is
subject to accept the command and control,
central conspiracy monopoly, mindset as "natural fact".
you see, the "official" explanation of events is
the monopolized conspiracy theory become historic
all bullshit of course, but, it satisfies the
artifice of so called "mental competence" to
pay the bills and move the existing infrastructure,
malinvestment, one pace forward to live another day.
scoundrels and refuge, never underestimate the

VooDoo6Actual's picture

When will America hit the bottom & have had enough ?

What is America's addiction with deception of the media or fear of going against a false / fake status quo ?

Turned the average American into a freaking Eunuch.

Forget the Wolf is at the door, the Wolf is on the WH.

Sheeple it's, what's for Dinner !

Killdo's picture

most Americans are very fearful, slavish and tollerant of fear-mongering and abuse. As a foreigner living here I think they fear their own government more than anything. They are deeply embarassed by it, but have no balls or ability to meaningfully aggregate to do anything about it

blindman's picture

John Prine - The Great Compromise

Lostinfortwalton's picture

Parkland Hospital doctors:

Dr. Malcom Perry: "A large wound to the head in the right posterior area"

Dr. Robert McClelland: " I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted"

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: ""for the rest of my life I will always know he was shot from the front" (After taking a final look at the wound after resuscitation attempts had ended)

moneybots's picture

"Parkland Hospital doctors:

Dr. Malcom Perry: "A large wound to the head in the right posterior area"

Dr. Robert McClelland: " I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted"

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: ""for the rest of my life I will always know he was shot from the front" (After taking a final look at the wound after resuscitation attempts had ended)"


Films and X-rays are the actual record.

Just look at the Zapruder film.  The large wound was on the upper right side of the head.  A large flap of scalp from the upper right side hung over the right side of the face, extending back over the right ear.

The flim recorded the actual event and is the accurate witness.


honest injun's picture

There is an interesting analysis of the Zapruder film that has the conclusion that the film was a fake.  To show this, people in the background are not the size that they should be if the film was real.  Also the pictures of Oswald holding the gun taken by his wife the day before has been shown to be a fake (the size of the newspaper that he was holding is known but when Oswald would have to be about 5'2'' if the picture was real but Oswald was much taller.)  In both cases, people look at the interesting parts of the images and pay no attention to the backgound information.  When the uninteresting part of any story is examined, the fraud may be revealed.

Lostinfortwalton's picture

X-ray films are not unquestioned evidence. Who took the x-rays, when, where, and of which body. On the other hand, there is no doubt at all that three experienced emergency room surgeons saw the president with a gaping exit gunshot wound to the right rear of the head. As for the Zapruder film I saw the president's head being snapped rearward at the head shot. Not sure what film you saw.

moneybots's picture

"As for the Zapruder film I saw the president's head being snapped rearward at the head shot. Not sure what film you saw."


What else did the President's head do, which you left out?  Forward and down at the moment of impact.  At the head shot the movement was forward and down.  After the head shot, the body moved backward.

As the body began to move backward, the right arm jumped up.  A muscle spasm.  That would be consistent with the theory that a muscle spasm caused the body to lurch back, a few frames after the bullet struck.

Look at what is actually on the film, not what you want to see in the film.

VWAndy's picture

So Moneybots what do you think about the shot LHO made? Its a real tough shot to make all things considerd. The barrel blocks the view of the moving target making leading him very hard. Head shots are not luck.

moneybots's picture

"X-ray films are not unquestioned evidence. Who took the x-rays, when, where, and of which body. On the other hand, there is no doubt at all that three experienced emergency room surgeons saw the president with a gaping exit gunshot wound to the right rear of the head."


The Zapruder film over ruled the doctors.  The film grain recorded the head wound as it happened.  The big wound was not in the back of the head.  Scalp from the upper right side of the head was hanging down over the right side of Kennedy's face.  That did not occur from a bullet exiting the back of the head.

Zapruder himself pointed to the right side of his own head, as to where he saw the wound being, when he sat on live telelevision shortly after the shooting.  He had not even seen his film, yet.

The X-rays were consistent with the wound seen in the Zapruder film.  There was no reason to question their legitimacy.

The critics don't really care about the truth. 

The bullet hole in the front of the shirt was caused by an exiting bullet.  Critics have claimed the wound was above the collar and the hole was caused by a scalpel.  The stare of death photo showed the wound was in the lower neck and photos of JFK in Dallas that day, showed that the shirt did cover the site of the frontal neck wound.

Additionally, a scalpel makes a clean cut, not a ragged, torn hole.  Furthermore, scissors are used to cut off clothing in a medical emergency.  

Yet, all i got was a bunch of down arrows for pointing out the TRUTH. 

So obviously, a fairy tail conspiracy is more important to most of those posting here. 



Anonymous_Beneficiary's picture

Is there anything in the official narrative with which you don't agree?

Save me a lot of research time. Thanks in advance!

moneybots's picture

"Is there anything in the official narrative with which you don't agree?"


It is not about the official narrative.  It is about the actual evidence.

I don't need the government to tell me that JFK was shot in the head.  I can see that in the Zapruder film.

It was Randle that said Oswald took an enclosed package to work, not the official narrative.  It was Harold Norman who said he heard all the shots as having come from above his head, not the official narrative.

The Warren Commission did not conclusively determine which shot hit JFK in the back.  There was not 100% agreement by commission members as to the single bullet theory.  If there was an intent to whitewash, everyone would have been publicly in agreement.



Chupacabra-322's picture

Please correct my history if I am wrong, but, didn't the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopaths at the CIA PsyOp Labs cook up the term "conspiracy therorist" after the Kennedy assassination? Directed towards anyone that questioned Kennedy's Execution?

sgt_doom's picture


That came out in the late 1970s, during a document released under FOIA to the NY Times.

Detailed in Lance DeHaven-Smith's book, Conspiracy Theory in America.

A colossal book on that 1933 coup and surrounding events, is Sally Denton's book, The Plots Against The President.

Zero_Head's picture
Zero_Head (not verified) Chupacabra-322 Feb 24, 2015 3:02 PM

I read the entire article and must have missed te part where it said this was Bush's fault. George Sr, George Jr.  or Poppy?



sgt_doom's picture

Bush Senior was with the CIA during the 1963 coup.

When Bush #1 was CIA director, under Gerry Ford, Ford issued a number of executive orders establishing Bush as the first unofficial DNI:  putting him in ultimate authority not only over the CIA, but NSA and NRO as well.

pacu44's picture

So Ford made Bush the leader of the free world, and,  unaccountable to the citizens of the US of merika....

Chupacabra-322's picture

Try reading the first sentence of the FOIA Dispatch.  Yup, the term was cooked up because of the Kenndey Execution by the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopaths over at the CIA.

dexter_morgan's picture

4/1/67 - suppose it was an April Fools Day prank? ........... yeah, me either..........

Argyraspides's picture

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.

I realize this makes me a conspiracy theorist but, whre is the e.?

sgt_doom's picture
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy. It's even simpler than that.  There were only TWO whistleblowers at the NSA and the CIA and only ONE whistleblower at the DIA. Which meant that thousands at each of those agencies kept the secrets!  (Also, only TWO whistleblowers at the EPA!) Recommended viewing: Coca Cola and dead Columbian unionists: Al-Jazeera and future spy leaks:

torak's picture

Long: Aluminum

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

even when you see it, they will tell you it was never there. I am now afraid of bank tellers, they keep asking me why i take money out of the bank frequently, heck it's my money I know, but they look at me like I am commiting crimes against the bank and nation..they want us to never leave the web of control, because well if we do then we are planning something, as HLS says a big threat is people who don't trust the us government-much like isis.  They fear us for doing things free people do. makes me wonder. mel gibson was right just because you are paranoid, does not mean they ain't out to get you..

Anonymous_Beneficiary's picture

heck it's my money I know

have you ever thought of divorcing yourself from this notion that it's your money?

because you might be using somebody else's private credit and it follows liable for the excise thereon

JRobby's picture

'67 may have been when the CIA directed some of its focus domestically but it goes back to the 40's. Nuclear war created a large division. The Cold War, The Communist Threat, it just builds and builds from there to 9/11. For me, all bets were off after 9/11. It clearly became them and us then. But I am certainly being naive about the time line. That was my wake up call.

bhakta's picture

It is funny that I lost my confidence in the government back in the 1960s. My intuition was accurate way back then although I was only a teen.

bhakta's picture

It is funny that I lost my confidence in the government back in the 1960s. My intuition was accurate way back then although I was only a teen.

Lostinfortwalton's picture

I was in the USAF in the 60s. I always thought of Vietnam as being a non-nuclear land war of attrition in Asia. By definition it was not winnable. At the time I reasoned that it was just a major, major, mistake by the US government that wouldn't be repeated in a thousand years. Hah!

bobjamaica's picture

So the term conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory?  This won't help my credibility.  

mastersnark's picture

wish i could upvote this more

Radical Marijuana's picture

Yeah, the amusing irony of that statement being proven correct deserves to be moved up!

Perhaps as a sign at the front of the Rabbit Hole?

sidney sloth's picture

Any theory which says that some folks got together in a private setting and agreed on a course of action is, ipso facto, a conspiracy theory.

Ergo, some folks got together and decided to fly some jets into some buildings.

No matter who you think did it, it is a conspiracy theory either way. Unless you think it was an accident.

It follows that we all believe in conspiracy theories. Where we differ is with regard to the belief in competence theories: did those who conspired have any idea that things were going pan out the way they did?

mrdenis's picture

So who "coined the phrase" tin foil hat ?

sgt_doom's picture

Sssssshhhhhh, mrdenis, it's a classified secret.

But just between the two of us, dood, you go over to wikipedia and enter tin foil hat, and this is the super-classified answer:

The concept of a tin foil hat for protection against interference of the mind was mentioned in a science fiction short story by Julian Huxley, "The Tissue-Culture King", first published in 1927, in which the protagonist discovers that "caps of metal foil" can block the effects of telepathy.

Over time the term has been associated with paranoia and conspiracy theories. It is often associated with beliefs that tin foil hats prevent mind control by governments, spies, or paranormal beings that employ ESP or the microwave auditory effect.

(Keep this to yourself, dood.)

OutaTime43's picture

Whenever the official story is determined within hours or a few days of an event, then you know that it's likely at least partially staged. Real investigations take weeks or months to determine cause and effect. Lockerbie took months and the investigation wasn't ready for trial for years. 911?..  We had pictures of all the terrorists, evidence left in cars, passports and the tie to Osama bin Laden within a day or two.  We also had news stories about threats by Al Qaeda against buildings for months leading up to the actual event.

Look at MH17. Within hours, it was blamed on Russian sepratists before they even looked at the ATC data. Theories about military jets in the area and confiscation of ATC recordings by Ukraine were completely dismissed .  The dutch still don't have the ATC recordings. The investigation is still tied up months later.

Many times, the facts come out accidentally in the course of the first few hours before the media get their editorial orders on what is and ins't allowed to be discussed. It's these brief snippets of time when the truth can be determined. When stories that were reported once suddenly are never discussed again, then you know they were likely accurate.

sgt_doom's picture

Hold it . . . hold it . . . hold on, dude! (OutaTime43)

I mean, you are seriously suggesting it wasn't a coincidence that Muhammed Atta tossed out his passport right before that jet hit one of the Twin Towers?  Huh?

Are you suggesting it wasn't a coincidence that Flight 77 crashed dead center into the west wall of the Pentagon, where the DIA's auditing team were meeting, the very same team which uncovered the fact that $2.3 trillion of DoD funds were unaccounted for -- missing?

Are you suggesting it wasn't a coincidence that those financial firms (in the Twin Towers) which showed an anomolous flurry of activity (offshore data communications, offfshore wire transfers, etc.) in the 12 hours prior to being hit by the two jets were demolished, along with those personnel involved, who might have compared notes the next few days at lunch, while none of the CEOs happened to be on site that day?

Are you suggesting it wasn't a coincidence that Building 7, which housed the source documents in the investigation of 3,000 corporations by the SEC and which were halted with the destruction of those legal source documents, was destroyed?

Are you suggesting it wasn't a coincidence that spread out aboard those four flights were three unique groups that day on 9/11/01:  developers of remote piloting hardware/software; people involved with the investigation into Flight 800; and, people involved with a 1990s Pentagon counter-terrorism scenario which appeared incredibly similar to the attacks on 9/11/01?

Man, you are asking us to accept a lot of stuff as not being coincidency?

SirBarksAlot's picture

And then you have the mainstream media using what Wayne Madsen has termed, "coincidence theories."

overmedicatedundersexed's picture

it should give us some joy in the fact the .gov security state sees us as able to do something to threaten them in any gives me more power than I would have ever dreamed i had..they fear us? LOL

what could any one of us do? get shot down in hail of bullets like Miriam Carey?

Hannibal's picture

It's all CONSPIRACY, theory!

luckylongshot's picture

I agree. Conspiracy theory is just as much an oxymoron as calling someone who thinks you will have weeds in your garden a 'weed theorist'. It is much better that we all expect and watch out for conspiracies than if we allow them to slip by unnoticed.

Herdee's picture

What they don't understand though is that the banks are double-crossing them.If your being used to launder drug money the impression that you give banking elite is that they are being handed a golden ticket to do as they please.What they've done as a favour on one hand for the CIA has proven to be to the CIA's demise.The CIA over the years were unaware of the economic warfare side of things and now the very banking cartels that have laundered drug money for them for decades have been shown to be the biggest threat to destroying the American Dollar and America's economic system and way of life.Gold is a major part of the manipulation by Central Banking Cartels  but both James Rickards and Jim Willie have proven that the CIA has been blind up until recently of the economic dangers.No one can defeat the USA by war but it has now been shown how vulnerable and blind that intelligence agencies really are because they've been double-crossed and backstabbed by crooked banksters from another direction.The biggest danger right now is he largest transfer of wealth in generations.It is banks sending the equivalent of the world's entire gold production to Chna,which will one day be a competing financial system to America's.All manipulated and done by crooked banksters.

sgt_doom's picture

According to the GAO, the last time a complete audit of the CIA was performed was in the early 1960s, and wasn't there some murder of a president around that time, which might explain why that complete audit was never released to the public, huh?