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

[orz]

Anyway, I told myself I wouldn't be getting involved anymore with the bullying and harrassment that goes on between Hugh and the angry mob that pursues him, so I won't.
~

The only 'bullying and harrassment' is Hugh making us put up with his terrible posts. And nobody 'pursues' him, rather he crashes every thread with his dumb gibberish and sensible people call him on it with increasing exaspiration and despair.

[Username]

~

The only 'bullying and harrassment' is Hugh making us put up with his terrible posts. And nobody 'pursues' him, rather he crashes every thread with his dumb gibberish and sensible people call him on it with increasing exaspiration and despair.

He didn't crash this thread.

This is Hugh's thread, you sensible person you.
~

[Zap]

You seem to have no problem holding onto other types of experiences.

Well, I was on LSD and in the midst of a hallmark mystical experience ... I think you'll find this is a common thing under such circumstances - noetic, yet utterly ineffable.

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

http://www.srds.co.uk/begin/mystical.htm

I'd have a great deal more sympathy for you if you would avoid saying things like:

"The fact that people apparently get bamboozled into thinking there is some validity to the connections Hugh makes is sadly telling."

Do please elaborate.

Fortunately, I am not concerned about gaining your sympathies, so I will indeed elaborate: while Hugh does cite a lot of worthwhile info, the creative output he builds upon those sources is largely utter shit.

And in my opinion, Hugh's omnipresent shitheorizing is a drain on this board and its energies, and I am bewildered by those who find them at all compelling - to the point that I often find myself wondering if these odd supporters are, in fact, sock puppets of Hugh's - or if perhaps the whole cabal of HMW sympathizers are a group of disruptionists from the Stormfront board or something, getting their lulz.

I don't know if I need elaborate more than that ... it seems that anyone who tries to engage Hugh's theories seriously, getting into the nitty gritty, being rational and detailed, is sidetracked and/or ignored.

So I'm not going to get all intellectual about it - I think his theories are shit, and so I say so ... and hey, maybe that's why I'm here ... surely my presence can't be a coincidence, right?

He should apologize, but he won't. So why don't you be the grown up and let it go?

I think you misunderstand. I'm not calling Hugh out because I'm upset by his repeated assertions that I am CIA, or his mockery of synchronicity.

I call Hugh out because he's full of shit and I find it repellent, disruptive, and about as 'dys-' as info gets. His omnipresent bullshit makes the board look like a clown car to anyone who comes by to check it out, and that's too bad.

[jingofever]

He didn't crash this thread.

But he did crash this thread. Then people followed him here.

[barracuda]

Know what fish?

Right or wrong, I'd stick up for you too if there were scallywags and scoundrels out to steal your thunder, because thunder is so hard to come by these days.

Well, in the context of this thread, it sounds as if I'm being lumped in with "his detractors" and "the angry mob that pursues him", which, to be perfectly honest about it, I don't consider myself to be. I've never been much of a joiner, and if questioning anyone on this forum with regards to their faulty logic, or politely (see my first post on this thread) requesting further sources of information adds up to joining an angry, undiscerning lynch mentality for you, then I'll happily abdicate my marginal responsibility for the previous actions or indications of the others in that crowd.

I would hope that an honest line of inquiry can be met with an honest, measured response in just about any thread on the board. I realize that my personal inclination leans toward sarcasm, but that's me, and has nothing to do with the attitudes of anyone else taking issue with Hugh's ideas or methods. I don't see myself as a "detractor"; I'm not looking to lessen whatever you may see as Hugh's achievements in the thread you've referenced or elsewhere. But I do think it is permissible, if not a necessity, to look at his voluminous writings on the forum and his influence in the shape of thought around here and wonder from whence this point of view arises. His reticence to answer direct questions along these lines does not engender my sympathy and trust, however. And if I happen to notice what I think is a flat-out misstatement of truth or miscarriage of implication, as I felt I did here, I would be remiss in my obligation as a member of this group not to say so, in which case of such remission I may as well fuck it off and spend my time elsewhere.

It is true that my own interests, training and professional background happen to overlap in certain areas with Hugh's polemic targets, specifically, I've spent a lifetime working as an artist, not only for several years as a contractor for Walt Disney Corporation, but also as an advertising art director for a Fortune 500 company, and this after about nine years of university culmiinating in several masters degrees, for all that's worth, which admittedly is limited. But I feel I have some valid grunting noises to make about some of these subjects, opinion-wise. As valid as just about anyone on the planet.

I appreciate that you've got my back. I hope this clarifies my position that I've got yours. And Hugh's, too.

[Penguin]

My position regarding this would be fairly similar to what mr. fish said above.

Communication is only possible between equals.

I would hope that an honest line of inquiry can be met with an honest, measured response in just about any thread on the board. I realize that my personal inclination leans toward sarcasm, but that's me, and has nothing to do with the attitudes of anyone else taking issue with Hugh's ideas or methods. I don't see myself as a "detractor"; I'm not looking to lessen whatever you may see as Hugh's achievements in the thread you've referenced or elsewhere. But I do think it is permissible, if not a necessity, to look at his voluminous writings on the forum and his influence in the shape of thought around here and wonder from whence this point of view arises. His reticence to answer direct questions along these lines does not engender my sympathy and trust, however. And if I happen to notice what I think is a flat-out misstatement of truth or miscarriage of implication, as I felt I did here, I would be remiss in my obligation as a member of this group not to say so, ...

I appreciate that you've got my back. I hope this clarifies my position that I've got yours. And Hugh's, too.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

What op?

Can RI focus on a national psyops program of Strategic Culture?
And its military-based perception management of national identity and history and scientific mindfuckery aimed at children who end up in boots killing foreign children?

NO.

Re: 'post-Vietnam' CIA-Hollywood, especially Spielberg/Lucas.

You won't get what is being counterpropagandized with meme-reversals in decoy movies like 'Jaws,' 'Close Encounters,' 'Star Wars,' 'E.T.,' 'Poltergeist' and 'Gremlins' plus TV shows like 'Fantasy Island' until you read-
'Kiss the the Boys Goodbye' (1990) written by a former staffer for 60 Minutes...who quit the show to write the book and was almost diverted by a CBS vice president...because intel and Special Forces informants came out of the woodwork to tell author Monica Stevenson about...the hundreds of documented POW left-behinds, many of them pilots sent over Laos and Cambodia after the 1/73 peace treaty,... due to an ongoing DIA secret war and CIA drugs plus a brand new 'all volunteer draft' that must be protected from potential recruits knowing what's up.

Turned out that Ed Bradley was an old pal of CIA drug mogul Richard Armitage and helped sabotage Stevenson's 60 Minutes presentation of the POW-MIA story in December 1985.

An MIA wife of radar technician Mel Holland, captured in the debacle of Site 85, filed a lawsuit against the USG in 1975 once she figured out that she was being shut up for no good reason about her husband's live capture. Her suit wasn't dismissed until 1982, the year of the Vietnam War Memorial and CIA-Spielberg's two POW-MIA decoy movies, 'E.T.' and 'Poltergeist.'

Whistleblowers in DIA like General Tighe and Jerry Tuttle were badjacketed in TV's 'Battlestar Galactica' and the Tom Hanks movie, 'Volunteers.'

The cover-up of satellite imagery of POW signaling led to the creation of the disinfo crap called "remote viewing" and an upsurge of 'crop circle' woo.

Mel Holland was captured in Laos at Site 85. Search it up.
This is why Steven CIA Spielberg made another mountain top the focal point of 'Close Encounters,' a movie that begins and ends with missing pilots.
'E.T.' is about a left-behind aviator and we meet the daddy-isn't-here protagonist children while they play Dungeons and Dragons. Get it? Duh.

barracuda, I was posting on memory and not at my archives so I mislead you on the fake lens flare of a bell. It's right when Elliot is about to stop hugging E.T. goodbye for the last time at the Capitol Builiding-shaped space ship, not in the flying bikes scene just before this shameless somatic marker attempting to mix POW catharsis and Air Force-flavored nationalism.

.....
It is true that my own interests, training and professional background happen to overlap in certain areas with Hugh's polemic targets, specifically, I've spent a lifetime working as an artist, not only for several years as a contractor for Walt Disney Corporation, but also as an advertising art director for a Fortune 500 company, and this after about nine years of university culminating in several masters degrees, for all that's worth, which admittedly is limited.
.....

Yeah, I figured there was subjective interference of some kind when I posited that MI6 propagandist Roald Dahl would do what he did and you went ballistic on me (pun intended).

Check Dahl's keywords and historical context.
Just like CIA-Disney, competing definitions for "factory" (post-Carson environmentalism) and "spider" (Allen Dulles' Nazi connection) and "cobra" (health insurance or evil socialism as we see still today) in news cycle context.

In the 1990s a CIA-Disney perp named Tim Burton produced a film version of Dahl's 'James and the Giant Peach' (4/12/96) just when long-time activist against anti-personnel munitions Titus Peachey of the Mennonites was excoriating the US's use of landmines and cluster bombs despite the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) as amended on 5/3/96.
Timing.

Tim Burton's work is all psyops, just like Spielberg's has been since atleast 1974's 'Sugarland Express,' a vaccine decoy movie and probably how he was brought into the CIA-Hollywood inner circle with a moral justification.

Speaking of Spielberg vaccine psyops, didja catch the news that Swine Flu vaccines also cause Guillam-Barre syndrome?
This was first discovered in the 1976-77 US Swine Flu vaccine campaign. What are the names of Spielberg's mom-and-alien-abducted-son team shown at the beginning of 'Close Encounters?' (1977)
"Jillian+Barry"
Gilliam-Barre
Jillian Barry
Gilliam Barre

S.O.P since WWII and OSS.
Ever read (1942) or watch (1953) 'Donovan's Brain?'

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Gee, barracuda. You've really gone back past point zero on psyops all of a sudden. 'Prove it or you're an eeeeevil-doer!' WTF?

Why, when I put up a psyops example ('Santa Claus 3') and the research article backing it up ("warm + competent = human") in the SAME post...did you then cite my example and brazenly claim that I offered no back up?
Did you suddenly get a brain tumor? Go blind? Why would you do that? Hmph.

You caught me. Psyops has not been the main tool of governance since WWII.
I made up all the history and science. CIA has never been focused on culture. Frances Stonor Saunders never published 'The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters.'

http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Cold-War ... 1565846648

There never were 1953 letters from a CIA-Hollywood mole back to headquarters on manipulating every aspect of movies and awards.

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=12707

According to some usernames' scorning of "huge conspiracies," there's no such thing as a national psyops program coordinated with regional centers, a system begun in WWII as the Office of War Information and as described recently in Army Field Manual 33-1 (Psychological Operations) or 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict).

source-
Army Field Manual 100/20
Air Force Pamphlet 3-20
12/5/90 version

Appendix E pages E-14 and E-15

Psychological Operations

......
Objectives

Psychological operations support the achievement of national objectives and target specific groups. The PSYOP objectives for the main target groups are as follows:

* Insurgents - to create dissension, disorganization, low morale, subversion, and defection within insurgent forces. Also important are national programs to win insurgents over to the government's side.
* Civilian population - to gain, preserve, and strengthen civilian support for the government and its counterinsurgency programs.
* Military forces - to gain, preserve, or strengthen military support with emphasis on builiding and maintaining the morale of these forces. The loyalty, discipline, and motivation of the forces are critical factors in combating insurgency.
* Neutral elements - to gain the support of uncommitted groups inside and outside of the threatened nation by revealing the insurgency's subversive activities. Also important is bringing international pressure to bear on any hostile power sponsoring the insurgency.
* External hostile powers - to convince the hostile power supporting the insurgents that the insurgency will fail.

National Program

The national PSYOP program contains national objectives, plans, guidance, and desired approaches. Planners prepare and coordinate an informational program at the national level. A single agency should be responsible for coordinating these efforts to avoid conflicting themes and programs.

Agencies at all levels base their PSYOP on the national plan, interpreting them in terms of local requirements, and coordinating them through appropriate ACCs [Area Coordination Centers]. To achieve maximum effectiveness, all informational activities depend on clearly established channels.

Civilian and Military Organizations

PSYOP organizations conduct and support informational activities at the national level and at the subnational and local levels.

A single agency at the national level -

> Plans a coordinated national PSYOP program.
> Organizes, trains, and allocates PSYOP units and resources.
> Conducts strategic PSYOP.
> Develops program effectiveness criteria.
> Monitors the PSYOP program.
> Produces, analyzes, and disseminates PSYOP intelligence.
> Provides an analysis of specific target groups.

At the subnational level, the ACC translates national PSYOP programs and directives into implementing guidance for local ACCs and all government agencies. At the local level, the ACC provides direction to area agencies, forces, and PSYOP teams.
Paramilitary organizations normally do not have their own PSYOP teams. Civilian or armed forces organizations provide PSYOP support.
......

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

So, barracuda quickly deleted his "prove it you lying disinformationist, you" post.

I should've quoted it.

You are off the deep end, barracuda, badjacketing me quite vigorously for posting 99.9% of the information about CIA media on this board.

[compared2what?]

So, barracuda quickly deleted his "prove it you lying disinformationist, you" post.

I should've quoted it.

You are off the deep end, barracuda, badjacketing me quite vigorously for posting 99.9% of the information about CIA media on this board.

That's not what he's doing, Hugh. He has repeatedly and clearly explained the specific and material reasons for his doubts about the information about CIA media that you post on this board, and asked you to address them in specific and material terms on this board.

You haven't done so. Instead, you have, inter alia, shifted goalposts, doubled down, disappeared, and on at least one occasion, rewritten a post in order to remove an error of fact to which barracuda had pointed without acknowledging either the error or the edit. You've also gone to the default-straw-man ground you're on now several times, although no one disputes -- indeed everyone supports -- the general contention that the CIA infiltrates and manipulates the media. You also habitually use repetition in place of argument, which is, as you know, the single most basic and effective device in the entire mass-media indirect-persuasive-tactic tool-kit.

Consequently, barracuda's doubts have increased rather than diminished. But they're fundamentally the same doubts for which he openly gave his specific and material reasons from the get.

You know what badjacketing is, right?

See how you're doing something closer to it by accusing barracuda of badjacketing you for speaking unwelcome truths about the CIA media when he's never said or implied that such truths would be unwelcome than he is by becoming frustrated enough with your employment of an assortment of rhetorical strategies commonly also employed by disinformationists to have evidently called you one in a fit of pique before thinking better of it?

I'm sure that you do. I mean, everyone sometimes overlooks such things in the heat of the moment, of course. But now I've pointed it out, and it's not like it's hidden or anything. It's right there, in plain sight. And you've got eyes. So you can't miss it.

[barracuda]

My presence in this conversation is superfluous to any perceived badjacketing of you, friend - and I can just imagine what your wardrobe looks like.

I agree that reading through this mess one might possibly come to the conclusion that I've gone off the deep end. But I can assure the casual reader or sideline kibbitzers that I still have my tattered wits about me, in spite of the contrary evidence of continuing to reply in the thread, even in the shadow of these last three epic posts by Monsieur Wins, riveting and informative as always. Being on the receiving end of his frothy ad hominem attacks is a badge of dark honor, I'd say, demonstrative as it is of his vapourous proofs to support his arguments. I'm sure that's as near to a concession as it gets in these waters.

So, barracuda quickly deleted his "prove it you lying disinformationist, you" post.

Villain! Dissemble no more! I admit the deed!

I did indeed call you a lying, stinking, cowardly, scheming, disinfo-peddling, horse-thieving boil on the neck of all that's good in this or any other world, and worse, even. I did. But upon more serene reflection, I recognised my words as a fleeting moment of excess but righteous anger, and, like a gentleman, I "pulled it". You might have seen this gesture as a tiny but well-meaning mote of good will passed from one fellow forum member to another, a silent peace pipe of sorts between brothers of a tribe, and let it lay. But noooooo. You had to bring your cutting, biting, devastating post replies down upon me, one after another after another, like Orwell's very boot, smashing and smashing me 'til, prostrate upon the forum floor, I lay destroyed, hardly a viable tooth left in my ruined (but utterly sincere and childlike) anonymous username.

And there I might lay still. But you're not the only one who can read books around here...



Apologies in advance to anyone still following along on this intermidable and boring tennis match, but I'm going to again begin...
To reiterate my contentiousness regarding your original post, even in as much as you seem to have abandoned the individual trees in favor of the forest:

- You've got no evidence that Dahl wrote propaganda after WW2. Whatever Tim Burton did after the poor fellow shuffled off simply doesn't count.

- Your ideas about the color green being used in the movie "Gremlins" as a deflection of the Eastern European Green Party movements is a poetic fantasy.

- You can't show proof of the pentagon or bell-shaped lens flares in E.T. The Extraterrestrial even though you fully admit that you are now back at your secret lair and in full possession and within arms reach of your *gasp* archives!!! The very mention of which sends icy fingers tickling the thorny spines of the shuddering minor NSA functionaries reading in on this very thread! Which I fully agree that some arcane data mining device may well, in fact, be doing. Oh well.

And please don't ask me to run off and find some part of E.T. and watch it frame by frame til I get to just that perfect somatic marker, get a screen grab, crop it in PhotoShop, upload it to ImageShack, and post it in the thread only to find out on page eleven that the scene you insisted over and again that I research turned out to be the wrong one because you were "posting on memory". I am not your personal psy-ops gofer, you blubberous marine mammal.

Now, to address a few points from your thrice posted onslaught (completely cherry-picked to suit my needs, of course), I ask the jury to consider the following excerpts:

Gee, barracuda. You've really gone back past point zero on psyops all of a sudden. 'Prove it or you're an eeeeevil-doer!' WTF?

False dichotomy. You may be an evildoer even if you do prove it. But you can't.

Why, when I put up a psyops example ('Santa Claus 3') and the research article backing it up ("warm + competent = human") in the SAME post...did you then cite my example and brazenly claim that I offered no back up?
Did you suddenly get a brain tumor? Go blind? Why would you do that? Hmph.

Brain tumor? I don't really know, but I do feel a bit of an aneurysm coming on. The research article you cite has no relation to the poster in question beyond your placing the two in proximity. Santa Claus is, if my archive serves me, quite often portrayed as red-clothed, and equally often he is contrasted by settings and characters which are white or blue, as exemplified by snow and ice. Your equivalency here is very weak, and your actual evidence is non -existent. I can just imagine your response if someone spouted this sort of hooey as evidence in a "woo" thread.

Speaking of Spielberg vaccine psyops, didja catch the news that Swine Flu vaccines also cause Guillam-Barre syndrome?
This was first discovered in the 1976-77 US Swine Flu vaccine campaign. What are the names of Spielberg's mom-and-alien-abducted-son team shown at the beginning of 'Close Encounters?' (1977)
"Jillian+Barry"
Gilliam-Barre
Jillian Barry
Gilliam Barre

Seeing as how this name grouping is heard rather than shown on screen as words at the beginning of the movie, it might be useful to examine the actual pronunciation of the Guillam-Barre Syndrome (which is actually spelled "Guillain-Barré" just for your information). It's pronounced ghee-YAN bah-RAY, not GILL-ee-am bare-EE. Does that make a difference in this case? I predict somehow you'll think not. Evidence? Forget it.

Okay last one, a personal note, then I'm done.

.....
It is true that my own interests, training and professional background happen to overlap in certain areas with Hugh's polemic targets, specifically, I've spent a lifetime working as an artist, not only for several years as a contractor for Walt Disney Corporation, but also as an advertising art director for a Fortune 500 company, and this after about nine years of university culminating in several masters degrees, for all that's worth, which admittedly is limited.
.....

Yeah, I figured there was subjective interference of some kind when I posited that MI6 propagandist Roald Dahl would do what he did and you went ballistic on me (pun intended).

I love the "shock" smiley there. "Oh my god - he worked for Dissssssney!! So that must mean he has subjective interference when it comes to the touchy subject of Roald Dahl - how shocking!"

Whatever the fuck that (subjective interference) means coming off your keyboard. I wouldn't put Dahl amongst my top twenty five or even top fifty writers. The only big screen film adaptation of his novels made during his lifetime was produced by Paramount. So there's a bit of a disconnect there. But yes, I worked for Disney as a contractor in a variety of roles, actually. Ask me anything. Do I think they are the satanic majesty/CIA incarnate? Absolutely.

Now go get your fucking shinebox. Your maternal relatives favor footware manufactured by the United States Armed Forces.

[Penguin]

"Santa Claus is, if my archive serves me, quite often portrayed as red-clothed, and equally often he is contrasted by settings and characters which are white or blue, as exemplified by snow and ice. "

Dont mind me, carry on. I once thought it was just Cocaine Cola as well...

[brainpanhandler]

His omnipresent bullshit makes the board look like a clown car to anyone who comes by to check it out, and that's too bad.

Well, he's generally not so omnipresent anymore, which is just as well because if he was spending huge chunks of his time dicking around on here that would sort of contradict his assertion that everyone should be spending every waking moment fighting fascism. He might be right about that, but even if I was sitting in a prison camp somewhere waiting for my 15 hour shift producing white phosphorous bombs to start I would probably steal any moment I could to enjoy the sunset, or tell a joke to a coworker, or reminisce about those gloriously innocent days when I had the leisure to post at RI.

The clown car is a nice image, but Hugh is by no means the only one. But what are ya gonna do? The fact is RI is never going to attract hordes of members. I mean what percentage of the population do you suppose will read Jeff's blog and decide, "hey, this is the place for me"? And of those passersby, what percentage do you think would read any of Hugh's threads and then decide, "fuck this, these people are a bunch of loonies"?




Cuda is doing exactly what should be done. Others have tried it, including me, although I left aside many of the more obvious arguments as without even positing them I knew they would go nowhere and I was less interested in creating an object lesson for the casual reader.

[§ê¢rꆧ]

[Zap]

Cuda is doing exactly what should be done. Others have tried it...

Yeah ... I dunno.

For example, arguing about whether or not there really was a bell-shaped flare in E.T.

In this case, there really is one, kind of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7RrGjJPmo#t=4m07s

(note how you can link to a specific time in a Youtube clip by adding to the URL, useful stuff)

... but it looks nothing like the Liberty Bell.

... and even if it was somehow, successfully, subliminally, symbolically communicating 'Liberty Bell' to viewer's minds ... what?

I just get frustrated seeing (or being sucked into) debate over specific details of his theories, as though the underlying theory itself wasn't an incoherent mishmash of loose associations without any substance.

The meme "containment" is a very important psyop tool. So this containment concept needed to be resold and its failures minimized.

I think that the "containment meme" that needs to be resold and failure-minimized is right here:

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=17928



-