Yesterday, Naomi Klein. Today, Kevin Kline. hmmm.....

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Bourne. 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' So why is that particular name, Bourne, being put in the faces of American youth with a spy movie, orz?
Can you figure that out?

Because Robert Ludlum picked it as the name of the spy-with-amnesia in his series of books 30-odd years ago.

There is nothing else to it Hugh. Freud's analysis "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar" is accurate some of the time.

Wrong. This is an exploding cigar. And Randolph Bourne is its victim.
I'm going off 'Klein/Kline' to show how the name game works yet again.

Why did Robert Ludlum pick the name Bourne and why has another author continued the book series which is now a movie series for youth with amnesia and hypno-programming being central to the plot?
How did that come to happen?

The writing of Randolph Bourne holds the answer to Robert Ludlum's writing.

One of the most famous and accurate anti-war essays was written by-
RANDOLPH BOURNE and called--
"WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE."

Randolph Bourne was a brilliant WWI-era writer who already had figured out the war profiteering system of social control to keep down the masses.

So the keyword "Bourne" was hijacked by Robert Ludlum and turned instead into an agent of war. Recall that I exposed how both of Bob Denver's most famous character names, Krebs and Gilligan, were names which were a threat to the war system.
And so is Mulder.

From Howard Zinn's 'People's History of the United States' --
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/WarHealth_PeoplesHx.html

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches.

Here's the entire Randolph Bourne essay, 'War is the Health of the State' --

http://www.bigeye.com/warstate.htm

>snip<
'War is the Health of the State'
by Randolph Bourne
.....
State has almost no trappings to appeal to the common man's emotions. What it has are of military origin, and in an unmilitary era such as we have passed through since the Civil War, even military trappings have been scarcely seen. In such an era the sense of the State almost fades out of the consciousness of men.

With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war.
>snip<

That ain't the kind of writing that the Pentagon wants to pop up in young recruitable America's head when they see the name 'Bourne.' They want that displaced with less threatening associations.

So Ludlum was either a witting or unwitting tool helping to make spycraft into fun fiction with the name 'Bourne' thereby minimizing the reality of whatever subject he touched and eating up the bandwith of readers who might accidentally read about real spy crimes as exposed by real CIA whistleblowers like Marchetti or Agee or Stockwell or McGehee or Levine or...

This is how Tom Clancy serves TPTB, too, as a safe attention sponge on a dangerous topic.

Clancy was interviewed on network TV on 9/11 because it looked just like one of his books and he's treated as if he is the real deal. How's that for confuse-etainment?
So he was brought in to review a competitor's plot and characters for us.
"I'm not a doctor but I play one on TV." But Clancy probably is the real deal in author disguise like many others, Robin Moore, Robert Condon, William F. Buckley, E. Howard Hunt, and Anthony Burgess come to mind.

How does the 'Bourne' movie's plot anchor, amnesia, serve the PTB?

The hypno-programming of Sirhan Sirhan is now being supported in CIA media because that is the second level of cover story in the CIA's murder of Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968. The first level was "angry Arab gone nuts." But now the hypnosis angle is known and will hide the truth for many who don't look to the third level.
The 40th anniversary of the murder is coming up in June of 2008 and we are being encouraged to embrace the second level cover story of a Manchurian Candidate even though forensics proves the third level where the truth is proven - Sirhan didn't kill RFK and was probably firing blanks while RFK's bodyguard, Thane Eugene Cesar, did the fatal shooting.

Ludlum did not just make stuff up. He researched. Who knows how he came to use the name 'Bourne?' Being cleverly ironic? Someone helping with research suggest it?
The diversion effect is the same, witting or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ludlum

With the exception of occasional gaps in his knowledge of firearms, his novels are meticulously researched, replete with technical, physical and biological details, including research on amnesia for The Bourne Identity.

Ludlum's novels were often inspired by conspiracy theories, both historical and contemporary.

Hey, Yahoo spooks. Boo to you, too.
You know your egos are secretly thrilled to have your tricks noticed. Don't pretend you like hiding behind the one-way cyber-mirror instead of being stars like Naomi Klein. You've chosen to work as Nazis. Repent!

[wintler2]

Bourne. 'The Bourne Ultimatum.' So why is that particular name, Bourne, being put in the faces of American youth with a spy movie, orz?
Can you figure that out?

Because Robert Ludlum picked it as the name of the spy-with-amnesia in his series of books 30-odd years ago.

There is nothing else to it Hugh. Freud's analysis "Sometimes a cigar is a cigar" is accurate some of the time.

But a long string of -ve coincidences looks alot like enemy action. I find it hard to accept, but Hughs increasing body of evidence is beating "i can't see it" & "its in the field". A few coincidences i could write off but the number and placement of them i find too interesting - evidence even that some of the content and work done at RI on eg. SRA-progrmng-mil.corp-drugs is right on the baddies tail.

[professorpan]

But a long string of -ve coincidences looks alot like enemy action. I find it hard to accept, but Hughs increasing body of evidence is beating "i can't see it" & "its in the field". A few coincidences i could write off but the number and placement of them i find too interesting - evidence even that some of the content and work done at RI on eg. SRA-progrmng-mil.corp-drugs is right on the baddies tail.

It's called folie a deux.

[theeKultleeder]

BTW - Ludlum is an absolute bore to read. I got the Ultimatum book for Christmas one year. Really bad writing. And I'm glad Hugh brought up Clancy - what a whore he is.

[jingofever]

A contrarian opinion on Bourne.

The first Bourne film debuted in 2002, the summer after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, when the country was still gripped by extreme patriotism and intelligence agencies were given broad authority to do whatever was necessary to combat terrorism. Yet, instead of being propaganda pieces for the "war on terror," the Bourne films have take [sic] as their premise that the enemy is the CIA itself.

...

Not since The French Connection (1971) and Bullitt (1968) have car chases been so thrilling. Bourne is forced to constantly run (and fight) because his employers have decided that he is a liability and must be killed. Through the three films, Bourne discovers that he is a specially trained CIA assassin who has killed a large number of people for reasons that he doesn't understand.

And maybe it is notable that Matt Damon grew up next to Howard Zinn and has worked on some of his projects.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Through the three films, Bourne discovers that he is a specially trained CIA assassin who has killed a large number of people for reasons that he doesn't understand.[/i]

And maybe it is notable that Matt Damon grew up next to Howard Zinn and has worked on some of his projects.

This emphasis on the Manchurian Candidate murderous programming re-indicts the innocent patsy, Sirhan Sirhan, in RFK's murder, one much less known about than JFK where 80% of Americans already suspect CIA.

So in 'Bourne' the cliche of the evil powerful CIA is old old old. No loss there.
But the protaganist's dilemma creates the tension in the minds of the young viewers.

I've looked at the sequencing of Matt Damon's films and they spell out something.
Each one leading up to and into next year's 40/45 dead Kennedy anniversary is like a different disinfo chapter about the principle elements of the JFK/RFK murders.

It seems the movies are sequenced to lead to a final effect. Clever planning and logical.

I have to go back and look at them but last time I did I realized that there's a large youth demographic that will see ALL of Matt Damon's movies so the ones that did would get the total dead Kennedy disinfo treatment over period of about two years leading up to 2008.

Gonna have to pull that thread together soon.
Just watch reruns of 'Dallas' and the 'Who shot JR?' episode until then...

[8bitagent]

Matt Damon has done good.

Bourne trilogy=exposing CIA MK Ultra manchurian killers
The Good Shepard=exposed CIA origin and occult elite in power
Syriana=exposes how corporations want chaos in the Arab world

I saw "In the Valley of Elah" today at the theatres, whose big message was "help! America is under distress, these wars create evil and create monsters".

The first trailer was Trade...and as realistic as the film might be, it probably doesnt expose WHO is behind the global child sex trade.

But I can think of a lot of good anti NWO films that some may interpret as muddying watered movies.

These films could be seen as water poisoning, or truther films


Shooter
JFK
Syriana
Network
They Live
The Matrix
The Good Shepard
Eyes Wide Shut
Manchurian Candidate
Bourne Trilogy
In the Valley of Elah
Good Luck and Good Night
Michael Clayton
Apocalypto

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The first trailer was Trade...and as realistic as the film might be, it probably doesnt expose WHO is behind the global child sex trade.

Back to my op and Kevin Kline. The bottom line on a film with an actor you like is that your feelings about him will be transferred somewhat over to the character he plays.

This is what makes Kline's 'Trade' a good counter to Klein's 'Shock.'

The good guy is Sheriff Kevin Kline, the American.
The baddies are other nationals 'out there.' And they are coming here for a bad reason.
This promotes fortress America thinking.

The same transferrence effect works in favor of CIA in that mega-disinfo movie, 'The Good Shepard.'

The same transferrence effect works in favor of CIA and Pentagon and USIA in Clooney movies.

The same transferrence effect works in favor of the 'good' Nazis of Project Paperclip when Tom Cruise plays Nazi Col. Stauffenburg who tried to assassinate Hitler with a bomb.



This Cruise project is too much to digest. Excuse me......rawgggghhhh....ech...

[Attack Ships on Fire]

I'm kind of in awe and shock of Hugh. He honestly believes every (or just about it seems) novel and film made that has achieved some kind of mainstream success is part of a sinister meme to bury attention to events of great importance to exposing what monsters lie behind the curtain.

I believe that there is a curtain behind the facade of everyday normal life and that there are shapes moving behind it. Occasionally you see a tentacle emerge and then dart back behind it. But I don't believe for a moment that it has achieved the kind of near-complete control that Hugh alleges it has over books and movies.

Do I believe that some films are used to promote a sinister agenda? Sure and in different ways, some more extreme than others. On the other hand, there are some films (like those listed by 8bitagent above) that suggest some of the people working in Hollywood have an idea that there is a curtain. I also believe that we live in a society where post-modern conspiracy entertainment thrives; look no further than "The X-Files" for proof of that. Every novelist and aspiring screenwriter seems to have a conspiracy laden idea floating on their brains that draw from the smogasboard of weirdness that's out there. Most of it is very diluted when it reaches its final form.

Nevertheless, try as I might, there is no possible way that I can see Robert Ludlum in league with the tentacles behind the curtain coming up with his protagonist's name to word hijack attention away from Randolph Bourne. If you keep going down this road and see dark forces behind every movie, TV show and book made you will encounter madness Hugh. You cannot accuse so many forms of entertainment as culprits or suspects without considerable evidence to assert your claims. I find more circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Gene Roddenberry got the idea for Star Trek and the Federation from talks he had with representatives of The Nine than 90% of the accusations you present Hugh -- and I haven't spent a lot of energy really mulling over the Roddenberry/Nine connection. You seem to draw lines between movies and their creators to controversial topics and your only evidence to back up most of your allegations is that a common name or title is held in common between the two subjects. That may be a way to start an idea but it certainly isn't hard evidence. Considerable evidence exists that supports the theory that a worldwide underground network of elitist pedophiles exist across the world; the evidence supporting the name hijacking of Randolph Bourne by Ludlum or forces that used Ludlum's chararcter isn't anywhere close to that level. Unless you have sufficient evidence (not just lines between points but allegations, quotations, witnesses, documents and so on) all you have is a theory that holds as much water as David Icke's reptilians theory. Jesus, even Eick has so-called eyewitness that claim to have seen reptilians. Where are the quotes from writers and filmmakers that expose their work being hijacked to carry certain themes, names or subject matter? Not even Kubrick dared to suggest that such a grand conspiracy was orchestrating Hollywood and here was a fellow that gave us "Eyes Wide Shut".


wintler2 wrote: " But a long string of -ve coincidences looks alot like enemy action. I find it hard to accept, but Hughs increasing body of evidence is beating "i can't see it" & "its in the field". A few coincidences i could write off but the number and placement of them i find too interesting - evidence even that some of the content and work done at RI on eg. SRA-progrmng-mil.corp-drugs is right on the baddies tail."

What hard evidence is there? That the surname of a Ludlum character is the same to a person that is an anti-war essayist so therefore a conspiracy to lessen the importance of the latter's work is in play? By that thinking you might as well believe that "Titanic" director James Cameron is only successful because The Powers That Be wanted to dissimilate the negativity associated with Dr. Ewan Cameron's MK ULTRA work, or that Chris Carter got the greenlight to make "The X-Files" because TPTB wanted to link Hugh's so-called woo-woo subject matter with someone else named Carter, like a Jimmy. Where does it stop? Where is the line drawn between what is coincidence and what is truly a subvert attempt at brainwashing the masses?

Without corroborating evidence it's nothing more than speculation. Even I know that about the current theories I hold about how the world works and who is running the show. Hugh throws a lot of subject matter out there but very little of it is of substantiative value and sticks to the wall. Maybe with more research and evidence some kind of shape will emerge but until then it's reptoid material.

[Attack Ships on Fire]

And Hugh, one more thing: just because Hollywood is making a film showing Tom Cruise playing a so-called good Nazi doesn't mean it's evidence of your grand conspiracy. Look at all of Hollywood's product: is there a lot of movies where the bad people win or are the central character? It's all Joseph Campbell's hero journey because that's what has the biggest ROI for the investors. Most people (I'm guessing 90-95%) of the people that go see movies don't want to see documentaries or "downers", they are paying for mainstream populist escapism. They want to see the good guys win no matter how implausible that victory may be. Watch and see how Cruise's new movie ends and you will see the Hollywood feel-good machine at work. In real life all the assassination conspirators were killed by the Nazis and I'm sure the same will happen in "Valkyrie" (which is the name of the movie.) What I'm guessing will happen is that the angle of the good Nazis sacrifice and how it laid the foundation for democracy and goodness to prevail will be that film's end coda.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Again with the mischaracterization and totalism of "every" and "near-complete."

Write this down. Put it in marker on your computer screen. lol.
What gets the hijacking and mirroring and negative framing and obfuscation treatment is:
covert ops, scandals, whistleblowers, anti-war statements and people, etc.

Those are very specific threats to power in the US which are countered with some measure whenever possible.

Re: Bourne. I said that why Ludlum actually picked the name could've been a suggestion to him during his thorough research or an ironic reference.
But now that the poverty draft has stalled and is sliding back, the value of not letting the name of the anti-war Bourne is even more valuable and I'm positive that's why the movies are out.

You do realize how hard the USG works to get recruits, right? And they are losing a war very badly, right? And next year's anniversaries of JFK/MLK/RFK are going to create a wave of aha!'s amongst internet youth which in turn will transfer over to more 9/11 truthy aha!'s and even less recruiting...right?

So what I was certain of was the net effect on the culture, first as a book and then much much more as movies in the last few years.
Remember that the people who call the shots and determine what is in front of your face are honchos in publishing or movie studios and distributors, not the content generator.

I've found instances where the content generator, the name that sells, was steered into a psy-ops device without their knowing it. That's really common and makes for a more secure covert op. Not everyone knows what their product is going to be used for.

So things can be nudged into creation with encouragement or just found and opportunistically promoted and released as a psy-ops device.

If all you're trying to figure out is if Ludlum himself was CIA, yes or no, you really don't know the variables involved and the paths to promotion that decades of CIA infiltration and just plain becoming or buying every useful venue provide for delivering psy-ops.

You think psy-ops movies are the exception? Oh no. Movies are KEY to military recruiting and your megaplex is almost 100% psy-ops. Way over 75% anyway. Easily.

If you keep going down this road and see dark forces behind every movie, TV show and book made you will encounter madness Hugh. You cannot accuse so many forms of entertainment as culprits or suspects without considerable evidence to assert your claims.

No problem with "madness." But thanks for your concern. lol.
On the contrary, the more coherent a narrative you have about the world, the less friction in your mind when you think about it. And I have a very coherent map in my mind even if it doesn't reach you through a few posts. So don't confuse your not seeing it with it not being real. If ya wanna know, ya gotta spend some time. I'll try to be a better guide but there are entire departments of full time Ivy League specialists cranking out for decades what I'm trying to expose. And they make it as undetectable as possible and there is so much of it that it doesn't stand out to the eye.

Unless you know what I put above: covert ops, scandals, whistleblowers, anti-war statements and people. Oh, and social traits that support military recruiting.

So don't expect me to put in a post the history of psy-ops, CIA, FBI, Hollywood, publishing, TV, academia, etc..
I've been doing it for over two years here at RI.

Go to the Data Dump forum and look at what I've put there.
Search up my over 3000 posts and find the theory, history, science, players, and instances of media psy-ops.

I find more circumstantial evidence supporting the notion that Gene Roddenberry got the idea for Star Trek and the Federation from talks he had with representatives of The Nine than 90% of the accusations you present Hugh -- and I haven't spent a lot of energy really mulling over the Roddenberry/Nine connection.

Sounds like you haven't spent the energy researching the topic.

And I have a good idea why there's a show on TV called 'The Nine,' since you mentioned it. It's counter-propaganda as many many things are.

It's either because of a group Richard Perle was in called the Defense Policy Board where nine members had ties to weapons merchants or the nine fired US attorneys that were the reason Atty General Alberto Gonzalez had to resign.

Both groups of nine are very politically damaging to this administration. Perle's group might have presented the first need but 'The Nine' show wasn't put on the air until the second group of nine came up, the nine fired US attorneys that Alberto Gonzales lost his job over.

That would be TWO scandals that involved the keyword "nine." See how it works?

You seem to draw lines between movies and their creators to controversial topics and your only evidence to back up most of your allegations is that a common name or title is held in common between the two subjects. That may be a way to start an idea but it certainly isn't hard evidence.

That's the minimization and mischaracterization that comes from not knowing the subject and obviously not reading the historical and motivational context I provide in detail every damn time--
covert ops, scandals, whistleblowers, anti-war statements and people. Oh, and social traits that support military recruiting.

Sorry, you don't see and understand cultural psy-ops by pros simply by waiting for "proof" to fall into your lap in one or a few of my posts.
You need a pretty strong database of themes always promoted or discouraged and things wished to be hidden by TPTB and a database of players and a database of tactics.

Considerable evidence exists that supports the theory that a worldwide underground network of elitist pedophiles exist across the world; the evidence supporting the name hijacking of Randolph Bourne by Ludlum or forces that used Ludlum's chararcter isn't anywhere close to that level. Unless you have sufficient evidence (not just lines between points but allegations, quotations, witnesses, documents and so on) all you have is a theory that holds as much water as David Icke's reptilians theory.

Any idea how many name game devices I've discovered? Dozens.
Any idea how many psy-ops movies I've found? Scores.

Plus I've found how the psy-ops devices changed as theory was developed from WWII to today. Would you recognize this shift?

Sorry, you don't seem to have any database at all.

Jesus, even Eick has so-called eyewitness that claim to have seen reptilians. Where are the quotes from writers and filmmakers that expose their work being hijacked to carry certain themes, names or subject matter?

Oh, you want covert agents to wave a flag. No wonder you're frustrated.

Not even Kubrick dared to suggest that such a grand conspiracy was orchestrating Hollywood and here was a fellow that gave us "Eyes Wide Shut".

Kubrick's films in the 1960s and 1970s were made for the spooks and Pentagon.
No, he wouldn't say that. In fact, he refused to say one word about what '2001' "meant" when asked. And good reason. No reason to be proud of pumping American exceptionalism during the Vietnam war.

Didja see Kubrick's movie 'Barry Lyndon?' Have you considered what the phonetics of that title do to the mind? Are you familiar with President Johnson's interviews out of office? Anything coming to mind?

How does Disney program kids?

What do you know about memory? linguistics? semantic differential? adjective checklists? verbal shadow?

I also know what the real sources are of the keywords in UFO alien folklore and why the standardized alien looks like that. Very simple earthly explanations.
If you don't, you haven't even done the tiniest bit of research.

The technique of obscuring topics related to secret power by cloaking it in woo is really simple.

The trickier stuff is deconstructing the system theory of fuzzy logic embedded subliminally for triggering auxiliary attitudes used to rearouse the integration of primary attitudes.

That make sense? No? Then you've got some studying to do.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

And Hugh, one more thing: just because Hollywood is making a film showing Tom Cruise playing a so-called good Nazi doesn't mean it's evidence of your grand conspiracy.
.....
What I'm guessing will happen is that the angle of the good Nazis sacrifice and how it laid the foundation for democracy and goodness to prevail will be that film's end coda.

The tactic of creating ambivalence instead of firm judgement has been used to soften the public's attitude towards Mafia and CIA and Nazis. For good reason. They all are components of the US military industrial complex and government.

When CIA dirty tricks and atrocities were being dumped into public view in 1975 we got the Robert Redford good pretty boy CIA analyst who was victimized by bad CIA in 'Three Days of the Condor.'

During the Bush-Cheney administration the history of Wall Street funding the Nazi Party and Prescott Bush helping has been an infowar bomb whose wick is the importation of Nazi war criminals called Project Paperclip.

So creating ambivalence with the model of a 'good Nazi' who tried to kill Hitler is the reason for spook Hollywood to put an actor the kids will identify with in the role of Stauffenburg.

I exposed the effort by a CIA cut out film company to reverse the meme of Project Paperclip with a film called The Paperclip Project which is being marketed to US schools as a warm fuzzy Holocaust history lesson--

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=6797
(Decoy film hides US-Nazi connection from US school kids.)

This effort of mine inspired the CIA-Washington Post to create a decoy of my decoy film exposure on April 2, 2007 in a human behavior column about "the decoy effect"--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/01/AR2007040100973.html

The Decoy Effect, or How to Win an Election

By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, April 2, 2007; Page A03

If Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ever took a break from fundraising to bone up on psychology, they might realize the need to talk up . . . John Edwards.

The same WPost columnist recently even created a decoy version of my exposure of how meme-reversal is a component of counter-propaganda right after I showed how an iconic civil rights image was meme-reversed by USA Today because of a study showing US schools becoming more segregated and the case of the Jena 6 in Louisiania sparked by nooses put in a school yard tree.

So you may not 'get it,' ASoF, but professionals do. All too well. Not only have I identified their tactics but they are now using those tactics against my identifying them.
There's always room for more haystack around a needle.

[8bitagent]

There might be some limited hangout/poisoning the well as Hugh Manatee posits...

but I don't see a grand conspiracy involving that many Hollywood films.

The 9/11 synconicites for example...mere hindsight looking back?
our psychic subconscious tapping into future events?
Or an obsession with the emergency "9-1-1"?
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Hollywood_911.htm

Now speaking of Robert Redford, he starred in a 1972 film called the Hot Rock. He used the word "Afghanistan" to trigger mind control manchurian type assassins, and the twin towers in the film had tape approx. where the planes would fly in 29 years later

Theres a number of 70's films many have alleged had CIA shenanigans

Other films, like Transformers, are what they appear to be:
sheer US army propaganda recruitment tools

What Hugh is saying is that the CIA will help bring out a film that shows the CIA as MK ultra manchurian puppeteers to muddy the waters...I think?

Here's another clear anti nwo film, done by an anti nwo guy and 9/11 truther: A Scanner Darkly

Heck Shooter was definately a truther film, and the director Antoine Fuqua openly questions 9/11 and the government

[orz]

A few coincidences i could write off but the number and placement of them i find too interesting -

But most of what Hugh details here aren't even coincidences. They're just totally unrelated things which he goes out of his way to imply nonexistent connections between.

No real word person would make ANY connection between the Shock Doctrine and some Kevin Kline movie... If they were aware of both, they'd be able to handle these two totally seperate pieces of information no problem, and to read/watch one or the other, both or neither as they see fit. There's no way the mere fact of similar names can possibly have ANY adverse effect in this situation.

[theeKultleeder]

Without corroborating evidence it's nothing more than speculation. Even I know that about the current theories I hold about how the world works and who is running the show. Hugh throws a lot of subject matter out there but very little of it is of substantiative value and sticks to the wall. Maybe with more research and evidence some kind of shape will emerge but until then it's reptoid material.