Cloverfield

[professorpan]

A very heartfelt post, ASOF. Thanks for that. Some people who haven't followed the years of Hugh's threadjacking and resistance to (legitimate and fair) criticism might view some of us as bullies, when that is absolutely not the case.

And Hilda:

I admire the way you handle your critics, BTW. Like I said before, it's amazing to me that people just don't go off and do a little investigating on their own.

Well, if you dig through the archives, you'll see that I and many others HAVE done our own investigation, and have laboriously pointed out the flaws in the manatee's theories. To no avail. Over and over again.

And it's hard to ignore someone who comes crashing into a room, shouting at the top of his lungs through a megaphone and ignoring all attempts at a real conversation.

[FourthBase]

Well, since it's just pixels representing words, and since you presumably have a scroll dial on your mouse, it's probably a lot easier to ignore Hugh than to ignore someone who crashes into a room shouting at the top of his lungs with a megaphone.

[professorpan]

Well, since it's just pixels representing words, and since you presumably have a scroll dial on your mouse, it's probably a lot easier to ignore Hugh than to ignore someone who crashes into a room shouting at the top of his lungs with a megaphone.

Yes, it is not a perfect metaphor -- but it is close.

However, those who suggest ignoring Hugh are correct in one sense -- because attempting to have a critical dialogue with the manatee is futile. I'm just not of the opinion that stifling my extreme disagreement for the sake of "niceness" is the best option.

But giving up out of weariness is certainly possible. If the lunatics take over the asylum, it's wise to get the hell out of the asylum

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Threadjacking would be following me around making ad hominum attacks, Pan.
Threadjacking would be constantly making ME the subject of a thread, Pan.
You and others do that. Other boards call that "trolling."

I can't stand the blindness on the Red Rain thread Jeff and some board members showed.
I'm going to go into it again since you brought it up, ASoF.

A couple of months ago there was a thread about the "red rain" phenomena of Karala, India, and the scientific analysis of the thread. The discussion was about the possible ET explanation for the rain. Hugh rode into that thread and immediately set about trying to draw an explanation that a scientific paper about the red rain had psyop words deposited into it to connect the phenomena to the "300" movie, as well as Edvard Munch's "Scream" painting. Hugh's posts were completely out of left field and derailed the thread.

Wrong. When you don't read and understand that a topic is even being discussed, don't call that "derailing a thread."

This saddens me to this day that actually discussing something is called "derailing."
And I was TOTALLY RIGHT about what I wrote.

I analyzed the author of the original post in the Red Rain thread.
She turned out to be a disinformationist who had CLAIMED to interview this scientist.
THAT'S discussing the topic.

Please please please please analyze a source. PUH-LEEEZE.

And I was RIGHT that she had embedded extra '300''s, too.
Recall that a science background poster pointed out that the '300' unit measurements MADE NO SENSE.

So I was right again. I hate having to point it out like a jerk but if you aren't going to get the basic facts right, I'll repeat them.

Plus she changed original reporting text to emphasize the appearance of blood on clothes to go with her '300' theme.

Plus I showed that a science magazine used the same allusion to 'Scream' in the slide I saw and that this science magazine was itself a psy-ops rag.
Please please please please analyze a source. PUH-LEEEZE.

I even showed how she used science psy-ops about 'mini-'dragonfly technology in tandem with the CIA-WPost. That explained an essay Jeff had written on it and HE AGREED WITH ME in the Red Rain thread.
I was right and you completely missed it AGAIN.

Plus the region in India that the Red Rain was ascribed to was analyzed.

Plus the themes and timing with Steven Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' movie marketing.

Plus the use of science fiction to shimmy up to science disinfo for psy-ops except Jeff deleted my example.

Plus the use of "cometary panspermia" as a possible cover for bio-experiments.

That was actually discussing something.

When this was pointed out to him he went on the defensive. When Jeff came in and said that what Hugh was doing was thread hijacking and that it wouldn't be allowed, Hugh quickly charged Jeff with censorship.

Jeff has shown repeatedly that he does not read very closely what we write.
He dabbles and grazes as many of us do at times. No biggie except when it leads to stopping a discussion and deleting information.

This amplified the board's intellectual blindness to discussing a topic's facets.
I expected more from Jeff and others than was displayed in that thread and I was sorely disappointed. The feeling was mutual.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Y'all should try discussing things other than HMW.
I'd say this was intellectual derailing of the thread. (Unless compliments, natch. )

And it's hard to ignore someone who comes crashing into a room, shouting at the top of his lungs through a megaphone and ignoring all attempts at a real conversation.

I know your framing devices. Play 'more rational than thou.'
"Honest," "real." "legitimate and fair." What polished manipulation.

You attack and distort for over two years now until I *gasp* use fonts!
And, of course, this is how you "prove" I'm a raving maniac.

SO, Pan. You are still contending that 'Cloverfield' is not a recruiting device priming young audiences for the mis-State of the Union Address, is that right?

Decapitation, 9/11 imagery, militarism, ...all just fun, right?

[professorpan]

Threadjacking would be following me around making ad hominum attacks, Pan.
Threadjacking would be constantly making ME the subject of a thread, Pan.
You and others do that.

Threadjacking is derailing nearly every discussion of a film or tv show into your nutty and delusional psyop-land. Which you have done ad nauseam for as long as you've been a member of this board.

I regularly attack your utterly bankrupt ideas when you post them -- that's not threadjacking.

And you are as guilty as anyone of turning discussions into personal attacks, so get off your high horse (which begs the question: do manatees ride horses?)

You were absolutely wrong in hijacking the Kerala thread, and no amount of revisionist history here will excuse that. And suggesting that those who disagree with your assessments -- including Jeff -- are simply not paying attention to what your write, is yet more indication of your megalomaniacal inability to imagine yourself as fallible.

You cannot be wrong, therefore everyone else is wrong.

That's boorish, narcissistic and just plain rude -- in other words, your normal style of communication.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....

Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. .....

.....
You cannot be wrong, therefore everyone else is wrong.
.....

So you agree with me but I'm a kook. ...Um, got it.

And when I examined Linda Moulten Howe, the source of that original thread's posted Red Rain article (that's legit discussion, right?), I found her dragonfly science disinfo piece Jeff had tried to figure out and he agreed that I got her sussed.
[url]
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... c&start=30[/url]

Jeff
Site Admin

Joined: 20 Oct 2000
Posts: 2504

PostPosted: 05 Nov 2007 13:21 Post subject:
About the dragonfly drones I actually agree with you, Hugh. If I had any time I would have blogged about it.

And I followed up by examining what she did with the Red Rain article.
Not exactly 'derailing' or 'raving,' I'd say.

[professorpan]

Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. .....

Thanks for quoting me. At least it shows you are actually reading what I'm writing.

Now if only you'd just open your mind a bit and consider that you might be wrong once in a while and that others have knowledge and viewpoints to share ... nah, who am I kidding?

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Evidence shows quite clearly that the government tries to influence the content of popular media, and frequently succeeds. .....

Thanks for quoting me. At least it shows you are actually reading what I'm writing.

Now if only you'd just open your mind a bit and consider that you might be wrong once in a while and that others have knowledge and viewpoints to share ... nah, who am I kidding?

'Course I read what you write, mate. Very carefully. Like walking a minefield.
I wouldn't have 'arf my sig quote otherwise, now would I?

And yes, I've been wrong. Not where you say, though.
I was totally right about Linda Moulten Howe's subliminal themes in her Red Rain article but took that to mean the topic was bogus until I found it was both deeper AND had even more subliminal theme history....like "AIDS from Space."

Serious stuff in there and I wish more would look how wide a topic is memetically and just how much is in the framing presentation. Frikkin' viruses abound!

[professorpan]

So you agree with me but I'm a kook. ...Um, got it.

Can you give us a more dramatic example of how you just don't hear what others are saying?

I pointed out -- with carefully selected links -- how easy it is to develop an empirical, fact-based understanding of military/intel influence on popular entertainment. Anyone can, with a little work, come to the same conclusion because the evidence exists. It's logical. It is proven.

I absolutely do not believe there is any evidence supporting the LEVEL of influence you claim exists.

The fact that you can't hold these two ideas in your mind -- that SOME manipulation exists, but it's not the TOTAL manipulation you argue -- is very telling.

Any rejection of your conception of "keyword hijacking" or suggestion that the military/industrial grip on popular entertainment is not as enormous as you suggest is interpreted as a denial of any control.

Pull your fingers out of your ears and listen, for cripes sake.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Anyone who actually - ahem - sat through 'Cloverfield.'

Is there any indication of why the movie has that title?

[professorpan]

Is there any indication of why the movie has that title?

Well, you could do a quick search and listen to what the director has to say.

"There were various titles along the way, but the first title and the end title has always been Cloverfield," explains Reeves. "When I read the outline it was Cloverfield. And 'Cloverfield' is the case designate. And when the first draft of the script came out it was Cloverfield. It's always been Cloverfield. And then we started changing the name over the course of making the movie because the irony was that when we first started no one knew anything about the movie and there was no danger in people finding out where we were and stuff. But then there was such excitement, and we were just in the early stages of shooting when the trailer came out, and that excitement spread to such a degree that we suddenly couldn't use the name anymore. So we started using all these names like Slusho and Cheese. And people always found out what we were doing!"

Reeves adds somewhat cryptically that there was another title that they almost used…

"There was this other title that we really loved," he recalls. "And it was again another title that had to do with an aspect of the movie… you would have to see the movie to understand what it was called. And so it was in a way another mysterious word. And when it finally came down to it, we thought, 'Well, first of all, it's been Cloverfield in our heads for all this time. And second of all ... everyone already knows that it's Cloverfield, and we're going to change it from one word that people think is mysterious to another word that people think is mysterious? What's the point of that?' So we were like, 'You know what? The movie is Cloverfield.'"

But then again, why believe that fascist-enabling liar?

And talk about an amusing synchronicity... while doing a search for articles about the name of the film, I came across this:

http://www.moviemarketingmadness.com/bl ... overfield/

"At first the TV spots seemed, based on what I was hearing on Twitter and elsewhere, to be limited to outlets like Sci-Fi Channel and such, but in the final weeks the reach expanded to just about everything I watched – and I don’t watch much TV. There also appears, based on this photo from Jeff Wells, to have been some outdoor advertising done."

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Is there any indication of why the movie has that title?

Well, you could do a quick search and listen to what the director has to say.

"There were various titles along the way, but the first title and the end title has always been Cloverfield," explains Reeves. "When I read the outline it was Cloverfield. And 'Cloverfield' is the case designate. And when the first draft of the script came out it was Cloverfield. It's always been Cloverfield. And then we started changing the name over the course of making the movie because the irony was that when we first started no one knew anything about the movie and there was no danger in people finding out where we were and stuff. But then there was such excitement, and we were just in the early stages of shooting when the trailer came out, and that excitement spread to such a degree that we suddenly couldn't use the name anymore. So we started using all these names like Slusho and Cheese. And people always found out what we were doing!"

Reeves adds somewhat cryptically that there was another title that they almost used…

"There was this other title that we really loved," he recalls. "And it was again another title that had to do with an aspect of the movie… you would have to see the movie to understand what it was called. And so it was in a way another mysterious word. And when it finally came down to it, we thought, 'Well, first of all, it's been Cloverfield in our heads for all this time. And second of all ... everyone already knows that it's Cloverfield, and we're going to change it from one word that people think is mysterious to another word that people think is mysterious? What's the point of that?' So we were like, 'You know what? The movie is Cloverfield.'"

But then again, why believe that fascist-enabling liar?

.....

Yah, I already read that pile of tap dance dust. I don't believe a word.

What a load of nonsense. "It's always been Cloverfield."

My homonym explanation makes much more sense related to the poster image of Miss Liberty who is a-hurtin.' Homonyms are all over the place so worth examining.

cLOVERfield. "Love her."

There may even be a second homonym that goes with the 9/11 image and horror-coaster ride.

cLOVER...FEELd. "Lover her...feel."

Also goes with the girl rescue device in the actual movie.

[FourthBase]

The phoneticizing doesn't help your cred, Hugh.
But to the others: He's just thinking out loud, ease up.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

:?

The phoneticizing doesn't help your cred, Hugh.
But to the others: He's just thinking out loud, ease up.

Cred's ok but facts is facts.

Phonetics and homonyms are like the parafoveal primers of aural language.
They are in your 'peripheral listening' but you still hear it.

(Parafoveal priming effect - off center vision which bypasses conscious processing.)

Like the recruiting message for high schoolers in the current remake of the movie
'3:10 to Yuma'...."threaten to you, ma."

Also...3:10= "afterschool" so "afterschool to you, ma."
And portraying mommy's home as a trap to be escaped is one of those many military recruiting themes.

Or all those subliminal homonyms I listed from 'Star Wars' like
Obi-Wan Kenobi..."obey, one can obey."

The indirect stuff is the psy-ops humidity your mind lets in by not bothering to put up an umbrella of critical thought. That's why every single seemingly stupid device is used and as much as possible.