'Gremlins' - WWIIDisney/Vietnam/Plum decoy by Spielberg

[barracuda]

What the hell happened to barracuda? He turned into professorpan. ech.

"You post every single thing you've got and that I demand in a thread or there's nothing no proof no hard evidence of psyops by Spielberg zero and I'm suspicious of you!"

Either you study psyops very thoroughly - because it is subtle and tricky - or can just plink at someone posts to reinforce your own sense of 'more-skeptical-than-thou.'

I came back here exhausted after speaking for six straight hours at an activist meeting-fund raiser to make a polite and clear reply, not set up a multi-media website archive within Jeff's board on demand.

I didn't search for a pic of the US Capitol UFO. And yours doesn't even show the top which is the most characteristic shape or the movie's overview perspective.

Hey - it's easy to find a copy of 'E.T,' I'll bet, so why don't you see for yourself if there's a Liberty Bell-shaped fake lens flare as the music peaks and the boys on their bikes fly through the air into the sunset?

Gawd, this board. It really isn't suitable for the topic. Too much bandwith required.

What twaddle. Pure ad hominem about me now. Great. I'm not talking about Speilberg. Don't move the goalposts. You have no evidence about Dahl, or the color psychology of the green monster/West German Green Party except what you can find in your hat, which I'll bet is a size 5 and 3/4. I'm not here to do your research for you, and I didn't turn into anyone. If you can't back up your bullshit with a few shreds of evidence, don't expect it to be taken on faith. It won't be. If you don't have time to verify, leave it out. You wouldn't take information on faith, would you? Why should I? Weak, as I expected. Exhausted, as you admit.

Why don't you point us to some other fora where your ideas are met as uncritically as they are here?

Ech.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Pure ad hominem about me now.

You started it. *sticks out tongue*

You will look for yourself in 'E.T.' I hope. And every one else who wants to see for themselves.

The tool being exploited is parafoveal priming.

This is the visual information around the center of your vision field getting into your brain without being filtered by your subjective filters.

So when your attention is focused on someone's face as they speak, for instance, there are objects in the background or being held by someone walking by that are subliminal cues meant to synthesize with your foreground information.

A text book example for studying parafoveal priming is CIA-Disney's
'Mr. Magorium's Magic Emporium,' about an old man recruiting a young woman to run his 'magic toy shop.' It's mil-intel recruiting of college women due to the bad PR generated by ex-CIA Lindsay Moran's 'I-quit-this-damn-boys-club' book, 'Blowing My Cover.'

http://www.amazon.com/Blowing-My-Cover- ... 0399152393

9/11 and the Twin Towers are evoked constantly beginning with the opening credits, the justification and motivation for joining mil-intel.

The scenes in the chaotic 'toy shop' have many people, many toys, many things on the walls, etc.

It's a super-dense background environment and almost every camera shot is set-up to maximize parafoveal priming.

You have to watch many scenes in super slow-motion to see how subtle the timing is of people flashing in front of the camera with something in their hands timed with keywords in the dialogue. Very subtle stuff.

Watch it with the pause button under your thumb and keep the closed captioning on so you can freeze-frame these hundreds of little psyops cues and rerun them like a football play.

[barracuda]

In other words, you've got nothing about Dahl or the color psychology issue. I didn't think so. There's no shame in admitting it, but to continue equivocating and side-stepping is a lie of omission on your part. Your nose is longer than a telephone wire.

You started it.

No, you did when you bitch-lapped your readership with the "fan" comment upthread, and proceeded to act like that made you right. You are not right on this one. Your argument is beyond thin, and it shows.

[Wombaticus Rex]

*dies chuckling to death*

thank you for that

[OP ED]

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... oq=e.t.+bi

[barracuda]

Thanks, OP ED, though I feel distinctly like an idiot chasing Hugh's nonsense around the web. Talk about a waste of bandwidth.

Here's an image capture of the polygonal lens flare in the "BMX chase scene" which in this shot definitely has six sides, though I can see how Hugh might have gotten confused:



I found no trace whatsoever of a bell-shaped ( ) lens flare in the scene, and no evidence at all that this was digitally inserted or in any way composited into the scene. And I'm not saying that lens flares don't ever come in pentagons. They do sometimes, most notably when using Hasselblad lenses to fake moon landings in the Las Vegas desert:



It all depends on the aperture shape and a variety of other factors.

[Zap]

*dies chuckling to death*

thank you for that

lol yes ... maybe someone can put together a compilation of HMW's most ridiculously ridiculous quotations, a Greatest sHits list, and the banner could be linked to that document .... might really help short circuit the damage he does all over this site.

[justdrew]

Roland Barthes
Semiotics and myth

Barthes's many monthly contributions that made up Mythologies (1957) would often interrogate pieces of cultural material to expose how bourgeois society used them to assert its values upon others. For instance, portrayal of wine in French society as a robust and healthy habit would be a bourgeois ideal perception contradicted by certain realities (i.e. that wine can be unhealthy and inebriating). He found semiotics, the study of signs, useful in these interrogations. Barthes explained that these bourgeois cultural myths were second-order signs, or connotations. A picture of a full, dark bottle is a sign, a signifier relating to a signified: a fermented, alcoholic beverage - wine. However, the bourgeois take this signified and apply their own emphasis to it, making ‘wine’ a new signifier, this time relating to a new signified: the idea of healthy, robust, relaxing wine. Motivations for such manipulations vary from a desire to sell products to a simple desire to maintain the status quo. These insights brought Barthes very much in line with similar Marxist theory.

In The Fashion System Barthes showed how this adulteration of signs could easily be translated into words. In this work he explained how in the fashion world any word could be loaded with idealistic bourgeois emphasis. Thus, if popular fashion says that a ‘blouse’ is ideal for a certain situation or ensemble, this idea is immediately naturalized and accepted as truth, even though the actual sign could just as easily be interchangeable with ‘skirt’, ‘vest’ or any number of combinations. In the end Barthes' Mythologies became absorbed into bourgeois culture, as he found many third parties asking him to comment on a certain cultural phenomenon, being interested in his control over his readership. This turn of events caused him to question the overall utility of demystifying culture for the masses, thinking it might be a fruitless attempt, and drove him deeper in his search for individualistic meaning in art.

and damnit orz you just killed my bandwidth. and there is so little of it to spare... sigh. yet SAVE THE BANDWIDTH reads his bumpersticker...

but dude, you've done nearly nothing but attack hugh for the last several days, there must be something fascinating to you about his theories.

[barracuda]

justdrew, could you try to integrate that quotation into this discussion? I'm unsure what point you are making, but my interpretation here would be along the lines of "Hugh is wasting his time demystifying media for us plebians in the context of his deep search for individual meaning in works of pop culture."

Which I find to be very interesting, but stupid.

[justdrew]

justdrew, could you try to integrate that quotation into this discussion? I'm unsure what point you are making, but my interpretation here would be along the lines of "Hugh is wasting his time demystifying media for us plebians in the context of his deep search for individual meaning in works of pop culture."

Which I find to be very interesting, but stupid.

yes. well, what happened was, just as I was entering this thread the name "rolland barth" popped into my head for no apparent reason, and I decided to look up the name, only to find the correct (I guess) spelling and out of the whole longish article I skimmed right to that passage and then it seemed like it would be nice to share that as a "thought to think about" with the OP. Who is, perhaps, in a bit too deep on some of these ideas of his. Although I think he's got a great grasp on psi-ops principles and practices, I wish he could find other examples that don't seem like such a stretch.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So derailing ad hominem vandalising snark aside...what mods?...
is it being refuted by barracuda, Zap, orz that-

> Spielberg is a USG propagandist using the same tech as CIA-Disney, Lucas, etc.
> Scandals get counterpropaganda decoys
> Political colors and symbols are used
> Semantic priming is used
> Contextual priming is used
> Pictograms are used
> Subliminal cues tied to somatic markers are used
> Advertising and marketing strategies are used...?

BTW, barracuda. The fake lens flares are only for a few seconds and you didn't even put up the image I described quite clearly.
As if you can put up one damn frame and crow "see, nothing." That doesn't even make sense as an attempted refutation. Why would you do that?

I put up a thread on color three years ago-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=8795
Color as subliminal messaging, 1962 Color Marketing Group

I also noted that since the main American political parties locked in their colors election 2000 that
the meme "Red/Republican/Good vs Blue/Democrat/Bad "
was being exploited in children's entertainment like-


And here's the 2006 social science behind this 2006 CIA-Hollywood movie poster-
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... _dont_say/

>snip<

Neuroimaging research to be published in the October [2006] issue of Psychological Science shows that the stereotyping of groups as being sub-human can happen on an unconscious, neurological level, even when a person is not outwardly repulsed.

“People spontaneously categorize other people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ and they do that within milliseconds of encountering other people,” said Princeton psychologist Susan Fiske, a co-author of the study.

Social research has shown that people evaluate people unlike them according to two scales: how nice, or warm, they appear and how smart, or competent, they seem. Some social groups are commonly viewed as being low in competence and high in warmth (the elderly), while others are stereotyped as being high in competence but low in warmth (the wealthy). Social groups that are stereotyped as having neither warmth nor competence—like drug addicts—are often judged to be both hostile and stupid.

“All behavioral studies have indicated that when someone views a social group as low in both warmth and competence, they view them with contempt and disgust,” said graduate student Lasana Harris, another co-author on the study. “Brain imaging gives us another way to get at that phenomenon.”
>snip<

This is why a warm godly red Santa was pitted against a cold evil blue Jack Frost who is also incompetent. To send the message to little brains that 'Democrats are not human.'

[Jeff]

So long as members respect the posting guidelines their ideas can be engaged or ignored. Hugh should expect a rocky reception, but he doesn't deserve that last post of yours, orz. I'm going to delete it.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Semantic priming

Search. Find.

Study how memory recall can be either strengthened or interfered with.
This is the basis of all those psyops movies and tv shows and disinfo online articles that get viral marketed before something hits the news cycle.

Just an example of the science involved-

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 504866e56c

Cognitive Brain Research
Volume 9, Issue 2, March 2000, Pages 137-146

Event-related potential indices of semantic priming using masked and unmasked words: evidence that the N400 does not reflect a post-lexical process

Diana Deacon*, Sean Hewitt, Chien-Ming Yang and Masanouri Nagata

Department of Psychology, The City College of the City University of New York, 138th Street at Convent Avenue, New York, NY 10031, USA

Accepted 28 September 1999.
Available online 20 March 2000.

Abstract

Several authors have contended that the N400 is a reflection of a post-lexical event such as that proposed by Neely and Keefe [J.H. Neely, D.E. Keefe, Semantic context effects on visual word processing: a hybrid prospective/retrospective processing theory, in: G.H. Bower (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, Vol. 23, Academic Press, New York, 1989, pp. 207–248.], whereby the subject compares the word on the current trial to the “context” provided by the word on the preceding trial [M. Besson, M. Kutas, The many facets of repetition: A cued-recall and event-related potential analysis of repeating words in same versus different sentence contexts, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19 (5) (1993), 1115-1133; C. Brown, P. Hagoort, The processing nature of the N400: Evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(1) (1993), 34–44; P.J. Holcomb, Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: Implications for the role of the N400 in language processing, Psychophysiology 30 (1993), 47–61; M.D. Rugg, M.C. Doyle, Event-related potentials and stimulus repetition in indirect and direct tests of memory, in: H. Heinze, T. Munte, G.R. Mangun (Eds), Cognitive Electrophysiology, Birkhauser Boston, Cambridge, MA, 1994]. A study which used masked primes to directly test this possibility has been reported by Brown and Hagoort [C. Brown, P. Hagoort, The processing nature of the N400: evidence from masked priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5(1) (1993), 34–44]. When the primes were masked, no priming effect was observed on the N400. When behavioral data were collected in the same paradigm, from another group of subjects, the usual priming effect on RT was obtained. Considered together, the data from the two groups of subjects indicated that activation of semantic representations had occurred without conscious awareness. As no N400 priming effect was observed, it was suggested that N400 must reflect a post-lexical process. This interpretation, however, is at odds with the findings of other studies which have reported N400 priming effects under conditions where post-lexical processes would not be thought to operate[J. Anderson, P. Holcomb, Auditory and visual semantic priming using different stimulus onset asynchronies: an event-related brain potential study. Psychophysiology 32 (1995), 177–190; J. Boddy, Event-related potentials in chronometric analysis of primed word recognition with different stimulus onset asynchronies, Psychophysiology 23 (1986), 232–245; D. Deacon, T. Uhm, W. Ritter, S. Hewitt, The lifetime of automatic priming effects may exceed two seconds, Cognitive Brain Research 7 (1999), 465–472; P.J. Holcomb, Automatic and attentional process: an event-related brain potential analysis of semantic priming. Brain and Language 35 (1998) 66–85]. The present study replicated Brown and Hagoort using a repeated measures design, a shorter SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony), and a slightly different threshold setting procedure. Significant priming effects were obtained on the mean amplitude of the N400 regardless of whether the words were masked or unmasked. The findings imply that the processing subserving the N400 is not postlexical, since the N400 was manipulated without the subjects being aware of the identity of the words.

Author Keywords: N400; Masked priming; Semantic priming
Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Methods

2.1. Subjects
2.2. Stimuli

3. Procedure
4. EEG recording
5. Data analysis
6. Results

6.1. Behavioral data

7. ERP data

7.1. Priming effects

8. Discussion

Acknowledgements
References

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Thank you, Jeff.

[barracuda]

So derailing ad hominem vandalising snark aside...what mods?...
is it being refuted by barracuda, Zap, orz that-

> Spielberg is a USG propagandist using the same tech as CIA-Disney, Lucas, etc.
> Scandals get counterpropaganda decoys
> Political colors and symbols are used
> Semantic priming is used
> Contextual priming is used
> Pictograms are used
> Subliminal cues tied to somatic markers are used
> Advertising and marketing strategies are used...?

I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about the lies you posted upthread regarding, primarily, Roald Dahl's childrens books as cold war propaganda for kids, and the unfounded nonsense about the color green/Green Party. These aren't very big issues, but in the context of this forum, unless you withdraw those statements, it is a proven fact that you are actively disseminating disinformation, which, if not a violation of the letter of the rules here, is certainly a violation of the spirit of this place. You're pants are not just on fire, but have burned to reveal your hidden self, and you are actively spreading disinformation. This is not a guess or a possiblity, it is the truth. I think your motivations are mere petty hubris, but even so, I couldn't read that thread-burying word avalanche you've posted above in any context except the context that you are a liar.



Try fixing the fucking thread spread, too. 8000 posts and you still don't know how to link text in your postings? Why should I accept your authority on anything important?