$2-Billion Mind-Control Lawsuit

[jingofever]

Oh, do please elaborate on your dismissal of "pseudoscience." I dare you.

We 'discussed' this here and I didn't identify the psuedoscience on that list because I don't claim that anything on that list is pseudoscience. Keyword hijacking is the pseudoscience (although that is being generous). Your theory may be informed by everything on that list, but your theory still doesn't work. It has too many false positives. But that doesn't bother you because you are not doing science. What you're doing is closer to some postmodern media analysis.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Hugh I'm guessing you:
- Haven't actually...

orz, I'm guessing you haven't actually read psyops manuals. Have you?

A 'yes' or 'no' will suffice.

Hugh I'm guessing your view of the woods is obstructed by all those damn ugly trees, is this correct?

Yeah, that's what I thought. You don't know the subject. You just spiel.

Can you name the Pentagon's nine (9) tactics of counterpropaganda? No. Move on, orz.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
Your theory may be informed by everything on that list, but your theory still doesn't work. It has too many false positives. But that doesn't bother you because you are not doing science. What you're doing is closer to some postmodern media analysis.

You can't even determine false from positive. So how can you be this dismissive?

And I am doing science. I tested a hypothesis, creation of decoy keywords and subliminal framing supporting USG status and policies. It came up positive hundreds of times since WWII.

I've only posted a few examples at RI, not many at all.

You seem to think that if you personally don't think any one example is real, then the whole hypothesis is invalid. That's not science.

[orz]

The difference you see is that when I haven't read much on a particular subject and don't have a very good understanding of it, I don't spend all my free time making insanely elaborate theories about it and rabidly declaring them absolute fact even though they would easily demolished by the most perfunctory first hand study of the subject.

[orz]

Can you name the Pentagon's nine (9) tactics of counterpropaganda?

No but I could probably quote them from one of your old posts and pretend I did. Will that do instead?

[orz]

Posting crazy and boring misinterpretations of a woefully narrow area of a vast and important subject is not science.

Teasle: Are you telling me that 200 of our men against your boy is a no-win situation for us?
Trautman: You send that many, don't forget one thing.
Teasle: What?
Trautman: A good supply of body bags.

[orz]

Can you name the Pentagon's nine (9) tactics of counterpropaganda?

No but I could probably quote them from one of your old posts and pretend I did. Will that do instead?

Search found 2950 matches

....ok maybe not.

[thurnundtaxis]

C'mon you guys.

Start a new thread for this old re-run of Hugh-bashing.

[orz]

Let's just keep this one, it's nice.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The difference you see is that when I haven't read much on a particular subject and don't have a very good understanding of it,....

...you make trollish drive by posts.

Thanks for admitting you don't even know the subject. Go away.

According the Pentagon psyops manual I've acquired, "Subcourse PO 0810 Edition 7" from the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School and the Army Institute for Professional Development dated November 1989...there are these techniques of counterpropaganda:

> Direct refutation
> Indirect refutation
> Diversionary appeals
> Silence
> Forestalling
> Conditioning
> Restrictive measures
> Minimization
> Imitative deception

I don't make this up. "Imitative deception." Hmm.

[orz]

Drive by? I've parked here!

You don't know what the subject even IS and have admitted as much first, then tried to turn the tables on me.

OK BACK ON TOPIC:

recap: Hugh claims entire news stories and court cases are fabricated in response to his posts on an internet messageboard, rest of world can see that's crazy, dumb and unfeasible. Did I miss anything?

My only regret is that you probably never will read The Media Crisis out of some sorry reverse psychology just because it was me who suggested it. Anyway I guess since Peter Watkins has been involved the education system and the film industry so you can probably just Kevin Bacon him to the CIA no problem if you need to to protect yourself from cognitive dissonance and save yourself a lot of tiresome reading.

[orz]

Have you ever considered turning their own techniques against them?

> Silence

[kurish]

null

[orz]

HMW, it would be great to see a comprehensive, referenced overview on your theory.

Certainly would. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

recap: Hugh claims entire news stories and court cases are fabricated in response to his posts on an internet messageboard, rest of world can see that's crazy, dumb and unfeasible. Did I miss anything?

Quite alot.
When anyone digs up the government's psyops bullshit and posts it online there is a counterpropaganda move.
This is s.o.p. for military media, no big impossible concept. If you think it is, you don't know squat about how widespread and common counterpropaganda is or why it is done.

My only regret is that you probably never will read The Media Crisis ...

I've looked at Watkins' essays. He's just barely got a handle on what's going on. A dabbler missing the real history of military media. A waste of my time.