edit: CIA+bribe trial+Clark/Perle+ Oil = BORAT!

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Where's the op here? Pan won't address Mutual Exclusivity and psy-ops and Kazakhstan? Why not?
Why use the Travel section of the London Times to 'prove' a mass behavioral effect?
Isn't Mutual Exclusivity in the human brain a significant tool for psy-ops?


Hmm.

So now Hugh is asserting that the TV show Dallas supplanted the House Committee on Assassinations with its "Who Shot J.R.?" story.

(shakes head wistfully)

Shaking one's head isn't a refutation of any kind.

I remember when the HSCA was in action but remember almost nothing about it from the papers where I was in the northeast urban corridor of the US. Since nothing was memorable, it was a whitewash. Because the truth of the matter is damn memorable!
Is 'greying' out a subject with boredom psy-ops? To hohum-ify it?

http://www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
.....
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

But the CBS TV show 'Dallas' was absolutely inescapable. It became a national obsession with tall Texas-hair jokes, Joan Collins forever, etc.

CBS also happens to be the CIA's first and foremost TV network. During the 1950s every Christmas the top honchos of CBS would have a swank party with the top honchos of CIA. Because they were the same people. And ex-CBS News president Sig Mickelson has said so. On camera, too.

Having since read of how the HSCA was derailed and prevented from doing anything and how the CIA got ahold of 'mainstream media' over 20 years before, I'd conclude that the CIA would pull out all the stops to cauterize the suspicions against them over the JFK murder in Dallas. This motivation was one of the major reasons to murder RFK, too.

That would be a motivation to re-associate the city Dallas with something else.
"And now for something...completely different."

(reminder: this is examing the potential use of mutual exlusivity and re-association of the word 'Dallas' to minimize associating it with JFK's murder by the CIA, a tactic I think is being used with Borat's big movie.)






Pan again-

Zappa's father did stick radioactive pellets in his nose. Frank was anti-union. Vaclav Havel is a member of the Committee on the Present Danger.

Uh...so what? Ah.
17. Change the subject
And then pretend not have slung piles of other nonsense which was then owned up to with "I was being cheeky."

But sadly any criticism of Hugh's theories becomes an attack on him personally, which is not my intention. But when someone becomes so emotionally attached to a theory or way of thinking that he/she can't disengage emotionally, the discussion becomes repetitive and unproductive.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
And a few of us are finding it productive. Go Ask Alice. (sorry, different movie.)

I'd rather be in Kazakhstan drinking horse urine than take the time to refute another one of his examples, so I'll just say adios to this thread.

25. Vanish

I'm reminded of a musician joke-
Q. How do you make a guitar player turn down?
A. Put music in front of him.

But what about Mutual Exclusivity as the brain science behind keyword hijacking?
Seems to me this phenomenon is as important to know as the Conservation of Momentum which reveals the 9/11 inside job.

Ain't science grand? I recommend looking at old movies and their release/run dates to see if there is a pattern of deflecting away from politically damaging keywords.

I've found a number of them. The dates match perfectly. Coincidence? Confirmation bias?
I think not.

[orz]

Uh...so what? Ah.
17. Change the subject
And then pretend not have slung piles of other nonsense which was then owned up to with "I was being cheeky."

OH COME ON! Don't be wilfully obtuse... that is NOT what happened... he did a very accurate satire of your posts demonstrating the completely flawed nature of the logic you employ, and how the EXACT SAME style and 'reasoning' can be applied to any subject to make them look like part of your CIA/media conspiracy regardless, of their actual views and the actual reality of why and how they created their art.

As for Dallas.... Is it possible for a manatee to 'jump the shark' or is that too much of a horrible mangled mixed metaphor!?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So now this thread is about Pan and Zappa?...sigh. (Actually, Zappa's many integrated statements about culture and politics are worth examining because they are the exact opposite of what Pan spun about 'tool of the Illuminati.' Mayber later.)

The science of conditioning minds with what people put in them is very real and old with decades of research and acres of corner office assets to deploy that research.

Plus it is relevant to every single peace and justice issue we face now and ever.

Yet this basic knowledge of how power stays in power is considered by some to be 'wild and crazy.' I will continue to post the history and science and examples nonetheless.

OH COME ON! Don't be wilfully obtuse... that is NOT what happened... he did a very accurate satire of your posts demonstrating the completely flawed nature of the logic you employ,

I refuted every single 'refutation' presented. Yet Pan remained "willfully obtuse" about the long documented history of psy-ops in 'entertainment' and the means-motive-opportunity of the US-Anglo Oil War present.

Note Pan's inability to dismiss the documented neuro-science that supports the very large value of using Mutual Exclusivity or pre-emptive association vobulary as repeated decoys.

and how the EXACT SAME style and 'reasoning' can be applied to any subject to make them look like part of your CIA/media conspiracy regardless, of their actual views and the actual reality of why and how they created their art.

Bald assertion with NADA to back it up. "Actual"? - "actual reality"? Meaningless, orz.
And what CAN be applied to any subject is a thorough examination which is not what Pan did with Zappa. There is tons of statements, lyrics, and actions over his lifetime which utterly refutes *upon examination* the 'satire' Pan wasted our bandwith with.

But I refuse to make this thread about Zappa. A partial post of mine (I still don't know how that happened) about the very real threat to power 'entertainment' is with examples of Paul Robeson and Zappa and others was used by Pan to create a diversion to goad me.

As for Dallas.... Is it possible for a manatee to 'jump the shark' or is that too much of a horrible mangled mixed metaphor!?

You didn't actually say anything here, orz. You and Pan have struck out so far logically.
But I'm sure you'll both be back to the plate.

Hey, did ya know there is another 'Rambo' movie coming out? Now there's a slow pitch. Lol.

[professorpan]

"Actual"? - "actual reality"? Meaningless, orz.

[orz]

There is tons of statements, lyrics, and actions over his lifetime which utterly refutes *upon examination* the 'satire' Pan wasted our bandwith with.

And yet, when you suggest a movie is 'Keyword Hijacking', ONLY the title is important, and the statements, works, and actions over the directors lifetime (not to mention all the others involved) don't mean a thing.

Hey, for that matter, you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WATCH THE MOVIE to 'prove' the CIA decided on the themes/title/whatever.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

"Actual"? - "actual reality"? Meaningless, orz.

As in, orz gave nothing to back up his assertion that my writing conflicted with "reality."

His was a non-assertion assertion. The equivalent of saying "nunh-unh."

I thought you were outta here, Pan.

But you're back to NOT discuss Mutual Exlusivity and mind-conditioning society through children and entertainment, I see.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And yet, when you suggest a movie is 'Keyword Hijacking', ONLY the title is important, and the statements, works, and actions over the directors lifetime (not to mention all the others involved) don't mean a thing.

No, I didn't say "only the title is important." I said it IS important since it is seen by many many many more people than sit and watch the movie.

Star Wars
Top Gun
An Officer and a Gentleman
Snakes on a Plane

Hey, for that matter, you DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WATCH THE MOVIE to 'prove' the CIA decided on the themes/title/whatever.

No, I say that these Title/keyword effects happen due to the human context of neuroscience combined with history and have, in fact, been exploited repeatedly ever since the Office of War Information wrote Hollywood scripts during WWII and the Pentagon/CIA has ever since.

So examining a movie's social cues is warranted to see what it contains by way of-
>social engineering
>disinformation
>propaganda.

I've examined movies in detail with the pause button and a DVD player and found interesting cues all over the place that last a few seconds to a mere subliminal flash.

So that's from title to the brief images within the movie that I've examined, macrocosm to microcosm.

YOU and Pan are suggesting that the CIA/Pentagon DOESN'T use movies as a tool of governance or that we can't tell or that we shouldn't try to tell which ones with rigorous examinition.

That is a rediculous assertion on your part. Perhaps you should take Pan's 'advice' to test YOUR theory by 'proving the opposite.'

[orz]

Ok great. Whatever.

It doesn't change the fact that most of your SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of "Keyword Hijacking" are just ludicrous and don't make a jot of sense.

As in, orz gave nothing to back up his assertion that my writing conflicted with "reality."

Please see my increasingly impatient explanations, in every of your threads I've replied to, that there is NO OPPORTUNITY in the reality of the film production and marketing process for the fine detail 'keyword hijacks' you claim to have been inserted by the CIA or whoever.

There IS lots of room for general pro-war and fascist sentiment to enter the mainstream movie, and there is lots of cooperation between the entertainment and military industries.

As you can tell there's not a lot of point continuing the argument in this thread, I don't think either of us are gonna radically change our minds here.

[orz]

I've examined movies in detail with the pause button and a DVD player and found interesting cues all over the place that last a few seconds to a mere subliminal flash.

oh god

So who puts in those subliminal 'cues", and at what stage of the process? Which film editors are directly working for the CIA? Because how else are they gonna influence the editing of a film down to the individual frame?

Hugh I think my problem with your theories is that you try to have it both ways.... A general influence on hollywood that happens from the top down without the rank and file of filmmakers, ad agencies, writers etc being 'in on' a conspiracy, yet is somehow able to control the fine detail right down to a subliminal level, of what you see on screen or on billboards.

There's your "mutual exclusivity."

[PeterofLoneTree]

"I've examined movies in detail with the pause button and a DVD player and found interesting cues all over the place that last a few seconds to a mere subliminal flash." -- Hugh

Hugh, 50 years ago I remember reading about experiments involving something like this. The details I remember about the article are kind of sketchy, but it involved inserting the word "thirsty?" on one, or maybe a few, frames of the film being shown in a movie house and then waiting to see if any of the patrons were motivated to purchase a drink from the snack bar.

Damned if I can remember what if any conclusions were drawn.

I do remember, however, the journalist (whoever the hell he might have been) being somewhat horrified by the whole business and asking (this was during the time of the "Communist threat"), "What if some evil genius decided to insert the words 'VOTE RED' into the film"?

[orz]

Yeah various attempts at subliminal messaging have been tried over the years... there's some debate over whether it's even a successful technique tho the fact that there you're not really allowed to do it any more imples that there's some reason to believe it works to some extent!

[professorpan]

Actually, the idea that there are laws against subliminal content is a myth. As a content producer, you can stick frames of anything you want into your work. The problem is, with today's ability to scan frame-by-frame, it's much easier for someone to call you out on it (witness the scandal of Pocahantas' private parts being exposed by some naughty Disney animators).

I studied print subliminal advertising for many years, and have a stack of examples of sexual and death/violent imagery used to sell all sorts of things, from liquor to movies to hotel rooms. It must work, at least to some extent, because it stayed in practice for some time.

The easily-spotted subliminal content has become more rare. Either the techniques are more refined, or the practice has been abandoned.

Note to Hugh: I'm talking about print ads here, not your allegations of subliminal embeds in films, which is another subject entirely.

[orz]

As a content producer, you can stick frames of anything you want into your work.

Depends what for. Here in the UK at least TV ads on mainstream channels have to go thru a lot of draconian checks, there are all sorts of rules about strobing, text being strictly in title safe area, etc...

But yeah it's possibly something of a myth about subliminals?

[professorpan]

Wow, I was laughing so hard at my coworker's Borat imitation I almost missed this story:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financia ... RUB880.htm

Kazakhstan, Russia start uranium venture

I was at the big-box bookstore, reaching for the latest issue of Business Week, when a magazine with a photo of Borat on the cover caught my eye. Torn between my mutually exclusive desire to read about the funny comic and to catch up on business news, I managed to break free of the faux-Kazakh's grip and grab Business Week instead.

It was difficult, but I made the right choice.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, has 30 percent of the world's proven uranium reserves and is currently the third-largest uranium producer, according to KazAtomProm.

Thanks for finding this, PP.
Yeah, all the junior high-through-college age kids are just buzzing over this news.
Not.

This importance of keeping American youngsters ignorant of energy-based geopolitics is underscored here, not refuted.

Mutual exclusivity, pre-conditioning, distractions.
Anything to prevent intellectual and emotional awareness of what signing up with the military really is so that the fictional but emotionally-compelling War on Terra continues to get young buyers.

Back to the article-

Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic in Central Asia, has 30 percent of the world's proven uranium reserves and is currently the third-largest uranium producer, according to KazAtomProm.

I doubt that Kazakhstan is providing ONLY Russia with this uranium if it has that much.
There must be plenty guaranteed to the US-UK contingent on the oil deals made with Bush and Blair and the signing on with the Kazakhstan government of BAE's ex-CEO.

But interesting that US-UK would allow selling uranium to Russia since they are the First Big Boy Customers and have bribed the dictator with his personal $84 million.

Makes me think that the elites of the US and Russia continue to be in cahoots as Antony Sutton documented despite the new Cold War theatrics for domestic consumption.

CFR/CIA and Russian elite/KGB use each other as foils to keep their own nationalist militaries and civilians on task, I think.

And that brings me to two other examples of keyword hijacking or, as others have contracted for me 'keyjacking' which I think is a broader and more inclusive description.

Here are related examples of-
>a movie title hijacking, 'Company Business' and
>a concept hijacking, 'heroin smuggling.'

There are two movies about the CIA called more-or-less 'Company Business.'
One's an expose and one's entertainment.

1) Phillip Agee, John Stockwell, and other ex-CIA agents helped Allan Frankovich make a documentary in 1980 about the history of the CIA, a very damaging expose called
'On Company Business.'

http://imdb.com/title/tt0234381/

It was re-released by MPI Home Video as a VHS tape in 1987 with the longer title, 'Inside the CIA: On Company Business.'

In 1991 MGM Home Video released a movie about the end of the Cold War and the alliance of CIA with KGB starring Gene Hackman and Mikhail Baryshnikov and this movie was titled...'Company Business.'

http://imdb.com/title/tt0101606/

Interesting, ay?

2) Speaking of Hackman, in 1971 Gene Hackman starred in 'The French Connection,'--
http://imdb.com/title/tt0067116/
--a movie about heroin smuggling through France by the mafia which coincidently came out just before Alfred McCoy's stunning 1972 book documenting CIA heroin smuggling from Indochina called 'The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade.

http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556521251

The CIA had been paying close attention to McCoy's trips to France and Vietnam to talk to first-hand sources.

So the greatness of movie directors is frequently in their...misdirection.

Are directors in on the 'fun and games?' Perhaps some. I think Steven Spielberg is in on the scam but the moguls who decide which projects get produced and distributed are the most likely culprits. (See 'Office of War Information.')