10/2:CIA-Disney, Brad Will, '68 Mexican massacre, LHOswald

[professorpan]

Hey PP and Orz, you might have more credibility if you brought something of your own to this board. I remember about one laugh moment from each of you in all my time here. Other than that, you seem to be no more than impotent pathetic cops. (Not quite fair to you PP, totally fair to Orz.)

Please see the abundant archives where I wore out my patience bringing facts, logic, and thoughtful rebuttals to the table. I did that a lot, and he ignored it all, which is why I have no qualms calling out Hugh's nonsense when I see it.

[MinM]

from the director of "Spy Kids":


Was it the 2000 Mexican Presidential Election that a young charismatic candidate was taken out pre-election?

E.g., Robert F. Kennedy _________ and JFK jr.

Luis Donaldo Colosio prior to the 1994 election was the pre-emptive coup d’etat via political assassintion that I was trying to recall:

Who killed Luis Donaldo Colosio?

TIJUANA– Mexico has not been the same since March 23, 1994. That was the day – 10 years ago this month – that Luis Donaldo Colosio was gunned down in the poor neighborhood of Lomas Taurinas in the border city of Tijuana, Baja California.

Colosio was the presidential candidate for the Institutional Revolutionary Party, known as the PRI. His message of hope and change was beginning to resonate with voters who were fed up with a political system mired in corruption and abuse of power. Colosio's death shocked a nation that had not seen a political assassination in almost seven decades.

For many Mexicans, the assassination of Colosio remains an unsolved mystery. There is a man serving time for the crime, but the theories of a possible conspiracy – as in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy – just won't go away. People refuse to believe that Mario Aburto, a factory worker from Tijuana, acted alone when he put a bullet through the candidate's head while standing inches away from him at a political rally attended by thousands of people.

If you pose the question, "Who killed Colosio?" to a group of Mexicans, you will get a variety of answers. I did just that during a trip south of the border, during which I spoke to more than a dozen people who were there on that tragic Wednesday evening. "It was the system," said Yolanda Lázaro, a PRI party loyalist who was one of the speakers in the rally. Lázaro swears she saw Aburto before the rally with a security band on his arm, trying to control the cheering crowd. She viewed him as part of the system...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib ... linas.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Donaldo_Colosio
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpFuLzac_yc
http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/inst ... prias.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... wanted=all
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/node/600

[professorpan]

Wow... a poster about spy kids, and a poster with the word Mexico in it... and a Mexican leader shot dead! And Kennedy! Jesus! My brain threatens to explode with the interwoven levels of propaganda!

[jingofever]

So are you asserting that Disney is not in fact a US government propaganda institution?
Tell me about your research. I've posted lots of mine.

My 'research' has consisted of pointing out chronological errors or other problems with your research, showing that those examples of keyword hijacking cannot be examples of keyword hijacking. And if your theory results in so many false positives it is broken.

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.

Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible.

Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.

An assertion should allow the logical possibility that it can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment.

Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict.

Pseudoscience often presents data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.

and perhaps others seem to have everything to do with your theory.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

I ignore Pan because he just lies about me for a few years now.

So are you asserting that Disney is not in fact a US government propaganda institution?
Tell me about your research. I've posted lots of mine.

My 'research' has consisted of pointing out chronological errors or other problems with your research, showing that those examples of keyword hijacking cannot be examples of keyword hijacking.

You didn't answer my question about CIA-Disney. Please do.
Disney is critical to this thread, right?

"Chronological errors?" Be specific.
Brad Will was murdered on Oct. 26, 2006. Two years later 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was released on the anniversary of the infamous 1968 plaza massacre in Mexico.
That's two years and forty years to prepare.
Oswald was framed up by CIA in 1963...in Mexico. That's 45 years to prepare.

The memory phenomenon called 'the Similarity Paradox' goes back to 1900.
Over one hundred years to develop and exploit that!

And if your theory results in so many false positives it is broken.

That's not even logical. That's like saying that if sometimes you don't catch fish there are no such thing as fish.

And when the fish are subliminal cues in a covert psyops agenda, you have to even be able to understand just what is and isn't a fish. So to speak.

I make no claim to infallibility but a few errors (I must've made some) out of many many direct hits in no way "breaks" my assertion that these entertainment counterpropaganda devices exist and work using the cognitive science and military doctrine I've supported it with.

So tell me which of this below is "pseudoscience":

>principles, history, goals, and tactics of propaganda and counterpropaganda
>Stability operations
>imitative deception
>neurolinguistics
>semantic differential
>Zipf's Law
>subliminal framing
>proximity contamination
>fuzzy logic
>interference theory
>inoculation theory
>mutual exclusivity
>parasocial interaction
>parafoveal priming
>elaboration liklihood model
>social affirmation
>role modeling
>operant conditioning
>desensitization
>moral disengagement
...etc.

Here's a good example of the academic focus on associative memory that supports the tactic of opening a decoy film like 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' just before the Mexican government makes a criminal move to cover-up its murder of a young American journalist covering its dirty war-
http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/4/644

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 4, 644-650 (1982)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167282084007

Delayed Persuasion as a Consequence of
Associative Interference: A Context Confusion Effect
Michael R. Leippe

Adelphi University

Anthony G. Greenwald

Ohio State University

Michael H. Baumgardner

Burke Marketing Services, Inc.

Previous research (e.g., Tannenbaum, 1967) indicates that a persuasive message directed at one attitude object may alter opinion toward another, unrelated object. A process of generalization of a learned affective response to objects with some similar qualities might contribute to this indirect effect. Under some conditions, however, associative interference might cause a "spread of persuasion." For instance, when evaluating a particular object, a person who has encountered numerous messages about highly similar and previously unfamiliar attitude objects may occasionally retrieve from memory an evaluative conclusion learned from a message about a different object. To explore this possibility, subjects were exposed to a message-dense setting (48 messages within I hour) in which they received neutral messages about some consumer product brands in a context of either predominantly positive or predominantly negative messages about other, similar brands. Consistent with predictions, subjects' ratings of the neutral brands shifted within minutes toward the evaluation provided by the context. This result is interpreted in terms of an associative learning/interference model of persuasion.

This stuff is open source. But you must look for evidence that it is used covertly in media.

When there is a consistent temporal (time) correlation between 'hostile information' and the appearance of counterpropaganda in so-called entertainment media for decades, that goes way beyond statistical possibility of mere coincidence and becomes evidence of intentional agency.

That's the scientific method applied and revealing confirmation, not confirmation bias.

[professorpan]

Brad Will was murdered on Oct. 26, 2006. Two years later 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was released on the anniversary of the infamous 1968 plaza massacre in Mexico.
That's two years and forty years to prepare.
Oswald was framed up by CIA in 1963...in Mexico. That's 45 years to prepare.

See above for a clear-cut example of your inability to distinguish your own associations (i.e. connections you make in your head) from the exterior world.

The very fact that you think Beverly Hills Chihuahua, because of the fact that it takes place in Mexico, is specifically designed to hijack the anniversary of a murder and Lee Harvey Oswald (because *everything* hinges on the JFK assassination in Manatee Land), points out how utterly deranged your thinking has become.

But continue to ignore me... in the same way you ignore all facts that contradict your sad, loony fantasizing.

[jingofever]

I ignore Pan because he just lies about me for a few years now.

You didn't answer my question about CIA-Disney. Please do.
Disney is critical to this thread, right?

Not in the way you contend - I don't believe in keyword hijacking. I didn't answer the question because it had nothing to do with whether your theory is science or not.

"Chronological errors?" Be specific.

I was specific in a number of previous threads. Gilligan's Island/Carol Gilligan for example. And many more.

Brad Will was murdered on Oct. 26, 2006. Two years later 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' was released on the anniversary of the infamous 1968 plaza massacre in Mexico.
That's two years and forty years to prepare.
Oswald was framed up by CIA in 1963...in Mexico. That's 45 years to prepare.

The memory phenomenon called 'the Similarity Paradox' goes back to 1900.
Over one hundred years to develop and exploit that!

Wow, Beverly Hills Chihuahua is pretty much the Rosetta Stone of Mexican parapolitics. There is another movie coming out which may be of interest: Tlatelolco: Mexico 68. It can be like Z or it can suck.

And if your theory results in so many false positives it is broken.

That's not even logical. That's like saying that if sometimes you don't catch fish there are no such thing as fish.

That's what you want it to say. I'm saying if you're not catching fish then maybe your net has a gaping hole in it. That net example isn't exact. It's more like, if I claim to have a machine that will detect counterfeit money and it keeps flagging real money then my machine is broken but I wouldn't say counterfeit money doesn't exist.

And when the fish are subliminal cues in a covert psyops agenda, you have to even be able to understand just what is and isn't a fish. So to speak.

Are you talking about Don Knotts?

I make no claim to infallibility but a few errors (I must've made some) out of many many direct hits in no way "breaks" my assertion that these entertainment counterpropaganda devices exist and work using the cognitive science and military doctrine I've supported it with.

What direct hits? Were they independently evaluated? Or is the directness entirely in your head?

So tell me which of this below is "pseudoscience": ...

Some points on that list aren't even claiming to be science. But it is keyword hijacking that is the pseudoscience. Have you ever tried to falsify your theory? Is it possible to falsify it?

Here's a good example of the academic focus on associative memory that supports the tactic of opening a decoy film like 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' just before the Mexican government makes a criminal move to cover-up its murder of a young American journalist covering its dirty war-

a persuasive message directed at one attitude object may alter opinion toward another, unrelated object. A process of generalization of a learned affective response to objects with some similar qualities might contribute to this indirect effect. Under some conditions, however, associative interference might cause a "spread of persuasion." For instance, when evaluating a particular object, a person who has encountered numerous messages about highly similar and previously unfamiliar attitude objects may occasionally retrieve from memory an evaluative conclusion learned from a message about a different object.

What is highly similar between a movie about chihuahuas from Beverly Hills being lost in Mexico and the death of Brad Will? Besides Mexico.

[orz]

Hey PP and Orz, you might have more credibility if you brought something of your own to this board.

Sorry turns out it totally doesn't work like that. TOO BAD.

[orz]

Hugh just a thought, it might be pleasent to refrain from debasing the bloody corpses of murdered human beings with your inane free association fanfiction.

[professorpan]

Have you ever tried to falsify your theory? Is it possible to falsify it?

He has not, despite my near-incessant begging and pleading.

[professorpan]

Robert Anton Wilson said it succinctly:

1. Never believe totally in anybody else's BS.
2. Never believe totally in your own BS.

[Sounder]

Do the Hugh bashers here consider that subliminal re-framing, NLP, Operant Conditioning and other forms of manipulation are used by media to intentionally shape the public psyche? I hear what folk do not like in what Hugh says, but is there anything in his stuff that you do like?

I have my own problems with Hugh's POV, but I liked the recent Time mag analysis. What do detractors think of that material?

[professorpan]

First, those criticizing Hugh's ideas should not be labeled "bashers." Many of us have been very patient with him.

I've never said Hugh brings nothing to the discussion of propaganda. He has made some interesting points over the years, and I've told him so. But with Hugh it's all or nothing -- if you don't find "keyword hijacking" or his overall meta-conspiracy convincing, he reacts as if you are attacking him personally.

It's the zealotry and the absolute inability to fact-check himself or analyze his ideas critically that has made many of us so dismissive. He brings it on himself by simply refusing to listen to others or consider that he might be wrong.

[Sounder]

I asked questions so as to get a sense of the general pretenses of the Hugh detractors. The answers may help in developing discrimination to compare your thinking with Hugh's thinking. I would rather not think that you consider it beneath yourselves to simply answer my questions.

[orz]

But the whole point of rhetorical questions is that you don't expect an answer, right?