Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[82_28]

Hugh, what's your call on KWH when it comes to other languages? Say like Swahili or Hindi. Is it as widespread? Does it exist for other tongues or are English speakers and some western romantic languages just lucky enough to get "the treatment"? The thought just occurred to me after reading that "Ebonics" article SLAD just posted. Would say, a Bollywood equivalent exist in India? If so, is this also CIA or is it an opposing intelligence agency to it?

[82_28]

For instance, you have spoken about that movie Nacho Libro. In Spanish that looks like utter nonsense. What equivalents are there out there? Bear in mind, I am not saying I believe you to be 100% wrong at all or even 50% wrong. Just, what do you think?

[brainpanhandler]

As much as I enjoy "Fun Trivia", I'd hate to watch this deteriorate into another thread in which we are served up a progression of examples of hypothetical keyword psyops, or devolve into a manatee gang-bang. Guilty pleasure which that may be, I see now that it serves another purpose: to legitimatize his ideas by according them the credence of serious discussion and serious opposition, which is really not my intention.

I don't think that's giving the reader enough credit.

The "Dear Owen" letters demonstrate, for me, the very difficulty which governmental interference into the workings of films runs up against - aggressively leftist creative personalities with little reason or inclination to fear the CIA, or to subjugate their vision to the "needs" of propaganda, producing films which must, above all, adhere to the bottom line of entertaining audiences enough to recoup the considerable private monies which afford their making.

In the 1950's.

It is a task which requires skill, finesse, technique and talent, not to mention considerable luck, to succeed at all,...

How do you measure "success"?

...none of which can in any way be assisted by the dead weight of some indiscernible bureaucratic intervention on the order of arbitrary keyword placements, color reassignments, synonym interjection, etc.

Nor probably greatly hindered. And I'd probably choose some other word than arbitrary if you're being open minded still.

Just watch any number of the ham-handed propaganda films overtly produced by the U.S. government's Bureau of Motion Pictures, or by the studios, to understand what their limitations have been in this realm.

Independence Day was a godawful film and it has psyops written all over it. I don't have smoking gun "dear Owen" letters that document that contention, but it seems inconceivable to me that the script and the casting was not directly and largely influenced by governmental agents/agencies interested in it's social engineering/propaganda/psyops purposes. I mention it though not so much to make that point which I cannot support with actual evidence but rather to counter the idea that a "godawful film", as evaluated by me on it's artistic merit, can nonetheless be momumentally "successful" at the box office, which is a point that I am sure you'll readily concede. In other words they might not be great film makers, but they don't have to be.

[Sounder]

HMW wrote...

Funny, I don' t see any posts by you on mass psyops.
Funny, I don't see any posts by you in the Psyops and Meme Management forum which was created by Jeff just for my posts. There's just tumbleweeds there unless I'm posting.
And I've posted around 94% of the documentation of psyops on this board.

This is strident, self-important, and frankly sad.

The juvenile myopic focus that conceives of the CIA as being so crafty and capable can itself be easily seen as meme management.

A further result is that Hugh will never engage with others that may present different or additional elements that impact on what contributes toward meme management. History and culture themselves are meme management in the most pervasive and manifest way. But I’m reduced to talking about keyword highjacking? Meme management is essentially about reducing the framing of possibilities to a manageable set. The Catholic Church did a fine job of restricting the range of possibilities, as have many others down through history. They even imposed the clever machinations of Gassendi and Descartes to reinforce the notion of a distant God, (requiring the mediation of a Priest class between the common man and God). It was deemed necessary to do this, by the power elite at the time, because of the rise in enthusiasm (thinking for oneself) engendered by the printing press.

Because Hugh will not engage with others in an effort to understand the many facets of meme management, he is a fine example of how a wider range of possibilities are closed to us as a simple byproduct of overbearing and insecure intellect.

Also, if anyone from the alphabet agencies is looking in at this site, their response would be nothing more threatening than them laughing their asses off.

[kool maudit]

After years of presenting art to the public I would tell you that language, like art, is interpreted according to the experiences and biases of the reader/viewer. I would say that you reveal more about yourself with this statement than you do about me.

haughty and somewhat automatic-seeming defense mechanisms aside, i laid out pretty clearly how your sentence worked and was structured. i'll leave it at that.

[compared2what?]

Independence Day was a godawful film and it has psyops written all over it.

Agreed. Although I think I laughed once.

I don't have smoking gun "dear Owen" letters that document that contention, but it seems inconceivable to me that the script and the casting was not directly and largely influenced by governmental agents/agencies interested in it's social engineering/propaganda/psyops purposes.

Really? I mean, certainly, I can easily conceive the script and casting being directly and largely influenced by governmental agents/agencies interested in it's social engineering/propaganda/psyops purposes.

But I can equally easily conceive the script and casting being directly and largely influenced by whatever blessing and/or curse keeps the creative imaginations of Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin free of everything except the fervent desire to bring their hackneyed and formulaic dreams of sci-fi action-adventure heroism to life on the big screen with lots of big, splashy visual effects that are even more hackneyed and formulaic than the narrative arc, such as it is. Plus, of course, the desire of the commercial movie industry to make big commercial event movies that cater to the lowest-common-denominator tastes and interests of a young male domestic demo that are (ideally) both suitable for summer release and ancillary-revenue-stream-friendly.

By which I mean: Have nothing in them that would be out of place if you mass-manufactured replicas of it in plastic and made a mutually profitable arrangement to have McDonald's give them away with Happy Meals.

But whatever. That's a distinction without a difference anyway, at least as far as I'm concerned. Because it would serve social engineering/propaganda/psyops purposes just as well either way. Or just as poorly, from the perspective of the not-insignificant number of people whose beliefs, needs, fears and desires had already been too substantially formed by the nearly infinite variety and combination of experiences and opportunities that their lives had or hadn't happened to encompass long before they reached the box-office window to be subject to much alteration by a movie as surpassingly insubstantial as Independence Day.

IOW: Propagandistic blockbuster movies don't make mindlessly jingoistic populations out of their audiences, honey. Rather, there is -- at the very least -- an inner mindless-jingoist in a large enough part of the American population to make propagandistic movies into blockbusters. And although I'm not at all happy even to stipulate to that point, let alone insist on it, I do insist on it.

Because for one thing, if other, more powerful factors were not in play, how do you account for knowing what independence is? I mean, by your own admission, you've seen the movie.

I mention it though not so much to make that point which I cannot support with actual evidence but rather to counter the idea that a "godawful film", as evaluated by me on it's artistic merit, can nonetheless be momumentally "successful" at the box office, which is a point that I am sure you'll readily concede. In other words they might not be great film makers, but they don't have to be.

Agreed. But that's not a static objective condition. Nor is it a self-contained and monolithic truth that's so implacably discrete from all the individual and social agency that the whole of humankind has ever been or ever will be able to muster that pointing at it and then falling silent (or, possibly, growing weak and/or agitated)...

...constitutes a sufficient response.

Because it might be a starting point for an intelligent political discussion, but it sure as hell isn't the conclusion of one. Granted, it's not as purely and plainly inimical to activism as relentlessly maintaining, often in nearly nonsensical terms, that an unknowable, impenetrable, untouchable and all-powerful force can reach so deeply into the minds of men that it can shut them off and turn them on without their even being conscious of it, thus pretty much reducing your activism options to pointing and growing agitated, then sulking when others weaken and fall silent.

Honestly, I'd be hard put to think of a political communications strategy that was any less likely to inspire, empower, educate or motivate the popular will than telling them that the Media-Intelligence-Community Complex not only has a surefire way of extinguishing it, but that it's so omnipresent and unprosecutable that the only defense against it is spending large amounts of your time and energy detecting it inferentially. I mean, taking all the life out of life has only ever been an effective political strategy for fascists. And same goes double for the demonization of decadent art. Because, you know. Precedents.

I guess I sincerely don't understand why it's important to you to hold this particular line. Why is it?
_____________

Oh. Also. Independence Day may be many things, but I don't see how one of them could possibly be "an example of covert keyword hijacking." Because:

(1) Blatant rather than covert;

(2) Also: Explicit rather than concealed;

(3) As already indicated, if you did know what independence was, that movie was powerless to deprive you of your knowledge; and

(4) If not, nothing to hijack.

[82_28]

Really? I mean, certainly, I can easily conceive the script and casting being directly and largely influenced by governmental agents/agencies interested in it's social engineering/propaganda/psyops purposes.

Abso-bloomin-lutely! I can say for myself, that I wind up always flashing on the poor, poor F-15s, totally over-matched by the superior alien technology while the poor president's wife was somewhere out there in the wastelands and was in need of rescue every time I think about "what America is up against". I don't buy into the propaganda of it all, obviously. But I am stuck thinking about just by dint of having seen that movie. Our poor, poor airforce, just the good old boys, never meanin' no harm. And a macbook probably running at 45mHZ saved the planet at the end!

[82_28]

Oh, for those who didn't get my Dukes of Hazzard reference of "just the good ol' boys. Never meanin' no harm", having grown up somewhere other than the USA. It's about this:



Argh! Disabled embedding on that clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGhQcnuhOk4

[12#4]

Here's a good article from 2008 that I thought was relevant to the overall discussion, but not exactly chock full of primary sources the OP is seeking.

Source http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/14/thriller-ridley-scott

An offer they couldn't refuse

The CIA is often credited with 'advice' on Hollywood films, but no one is truly sure about the extent of its shadowy involvement. Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham investigate

Everyone who watches films knows about Hollywood's fascination with spies. From Hitchcock's postwar espionage thrillers, through cold war tales such as Torn Curtain, into the paranoid 1970s when the CIA came to be seen as an agency out of control in films such as Three Days of the Condor, and right to the present, with the Bourne trilogy and Ridley Scott's forthcoming Body of Lies, film-makers have always wanted to get in bed with spies. What's less widely known is how much the spies have wanted to get in bed with the film-makers. In fact, the story of the CIA's involvement in Hollywood is a tale of deception and subversion that would seem improbable if it were put on screen.

The model for this is the defence department's "open" but barely publicised relationship with Hollywood. The Pentagon, for decades, has offered film-makers advice, manpower and even hardware - including aircraft carriers and state-of-the-art helicopters. All it asks for in exchange is that the US armed forces are made to look good. So in a previous Scott film, Black Hawk Down, a character based on a real-life soldier who had also been a child rapist lost that part of his backstory when he came to the screen.

No matter how seemingly craven Hollywood's behaviour towards the US armed forces has seemed, it has at least happened within the public domain. That cannot be said for the CIA's dealings with the movie business. Not until 1996 did the CIA announce, with little fanfare, that it had established an Entertainment Liaison Office, which would collaborate in a strictly advisory capacity with film-makers. Heading up the office was Chase Brandon, who had served for 25 years in the agency's elite clandestine services division, as an undercover operations officer. A PR man he isn't, though he does have Hollywood connections: he's a cousin of Tommy Lee Jones.

But the past 12 years of semi-acknowledged collaboration were preceded by decades in which the CIA maintained a deep-rooted but invisible influence of Hollywood. How could it be otherwise? As the former CIA man Bob Baer - whose books on his time with the agency were the basis for Syriana - told us: "All these people that run studios - they go to Washington, they hang around with senators, they hang around with CIA directors, and everybody's on board."

There is documentary evidence for his claims. Luigi Luraschi was the head of foreign and domestic censorship for Paramount in the early 1950s. And, it was recently discovered, he was also working for the CIA, sending in reports about how film censorship was being employed to boost the image of the US in movies that would be seen abroad. Luraschi's reports also revealed that he had persuaded several film-makers to plant "negroes" who were "well-dressed" in their movies, to counter Soviet propaganda about poor race relations in the States. The Soviet version was rather nearer the truth.

Luraschi's activities were merely the tip of the iceberg. Graham Greene, for example, disowned the 1958 adapatation of his Vietnam-set novel The Quiet American, describing it as a "propaganda film for America". In the title role, Audie Murphy played not Greene's dangerously ambiguous figure - whose belief in the justice of American foreign policy allows him to ignore the appalling consequences of his actions - but a simple hero. The cynical British journalist, played by Michael Redgrave, is instead the man whose moral compass has gone awry. Greene's American had been based in part on the legendary CIA operative in Vietnam, Colonel Edward Lansdale. How apt, then, that it should have been Lansdale who persuaded director Joseph Mankewiecz to change the script to suit his own ends.

The CIA didn't just offer guidance to film-makers, however. It even offered money. In 1950, the agency bought the rights to George Orwell's Animal Farm, and then funded the 1954 British animated version of the film. Its involvement had long been rumoured, but only in the past decade have those rumours been substantiated, and the tale of the CIA's role told in Daniel Leab's book Orwell Subverted.

The most common way for the CIA to exert influence in Hollywood nowadays is not through anything as direct as funding, or rewriting scripts, but offering to help with matters of verisimilitude. That is done by having serving or former CIA agents acting as advisers on the film, though some might wonder whether there is ever really such a thing a "former agent". As ex-CIA agent Lindsay Moran, the author of Blowing My Cover, has noted, the CIA often calls on former officers to perform tasks for their old employer.

So it was no problem for CBS to secure official help when making its 2001 TV series The Agency (it was even written by a former agent). Langley was equally helpful to the novelist Tom Clancy, who was invited to CIA headquarters after the publication of The Hunt for Red October, an invitation that was regularly repeated. Consequently, when Clancy's The Sum of All Fears was filmed in 2002, the agency was happy to bring its makers to Langley for a personal tour of headquarters, and to offer access to agency analysts for star Ben Affleck. When filming began, Brandon was on set to advise - a role he repeated during the filming of glamorous television series Alias.

The former agent Milt Beardon took the advisory role on two less action-packed attempts at espionage stories: Robert De Niro's The Good Shepherd from 2006, which told an approximate version of the story of the famed CIA head of counter-espionage, James Jesus Angleton; and Charlie Wilson's War, the story of US covert efforts to supply the Afghan mujahideen with weaponry during the Soviet occupation of the 80s. In reality, this was a story that ended badly, as the Afghan freedom fighters helped give birth to the terrorists of al-Qaida. In the movie, however, that was not the case. As Beardon - who had been the CIA man responsible for the weapons reaching the Afghans - observed shortly before the movie came out, the film would "put aside the notion that because we did that [supply arms], we had 9/11".

Beardon's remark provides a clue to the real reason the CIA likes to offer advice to Hollywood, a clue that was expanded on by Paul Kelbaugh, the former associate general counsel to the CIA - a very senior figure in Langley. In 2007, Kelbaugh spoke at Lynchburg College of Law in Virginia - where he had become an associate professor - about the CIA's relationship with Hollywood. A journalist present at the lecture (who now wishes to be anonymous) reported that Kelbaugh spoke about the 2003 Al Pacino/Colin Farrell vehicle The Recruit. A CIA agent had been on set as a "consultant" throughout the shoot, he said; his real job, however, was to misdirect the film-makers. "We didn't want Hollywood getting too close to the truth," the journalist quoted Kelbaugh as saying.

Peculiarly, though, in a strongly worded email to us, Kelbaugh emphatically denied having said such a thing, and said he remembered "very specific discussions with senior [CIA] management that no one was ever to misrepresent to affect [film] content - EVER." The journalist stands by the original report, and Kelbaugh has refused to discuss the matter further.

So, altering scripts, financing films, suppressing the truth - it's worrying enough. But there are cases where some believe the CIA's activities in Hollywood have gone further - far enough, in fact, to be the stuff of movies. In June 1997, the screenwriter Gary DeVore was working on the screenplay for his directorial debut. It was to be an action movie set against the backdrop of the US invasion of Panama in 1989, which led to the overthrow of dictator Manuel Noriega. According to his wife, Wendy, DeVore had been talking to an old friend - the CIA's Chase Brandon - about Noriega's regime and US counternarcotic programmes in Latin America. Wendy told CNN: "He had been very disturbed over some of the things that he had been finding in his research. He was researching the United States invasion of Panama, because he was setting the actual story that he was writing against this; and the overthrow of Noriega and the enormous amounts of money laundering in the Panamanian banks, also our own government's money laundering."

At the end of that month, DeVore had been in Santa Fe, New Mexico, working on another project. He was travelling back to California when, at 1.15am on June 28, he called Wendy, a call she says has been excised from phone records. She told CNN she was "terribly alarmed" because he was speaking as though he were under duress. She was sure "someone was in the car with him". That was the last time Wendy DeVore heard from her husband.

A year passed, but the case refused to die and speculation mounted. Even the Los Angeles Times began contemplating CIA involvement. DeVore was presumed dead, but there was no body, and no end to the questions. Lo and behold, just nine days after the LA Times reported the case, DeVore's body was found, decomposing in his Ford Explorer, in 12 feet of water in the California Aqueduct below the Antelope Valley Freeway, south of Palmdale - a city located in "aerospace valley", so dubbed by locals for its reputation as a US military-industrial-complex stronghold - fuel to the fire for conspiracy theorists.

The coroner went on to declare the cause and manner of DeVore's death to be "unknown", but police eventually reached the tentative conclusion that the screenwriter's death was an accident: he had fallen asleep at the wheel, they said, before careening off the highway and into the water, where he drowned. But loose ends remain: DeVore's laptop computer containing his unfinished script was missing from his vehicle, as was the gun he customarily carried on long trips; after his disappearance, a CIA representative allegedly showed up at DeVore's house to request access to his computer; Hollywood private investigator Don Crutchfield noted that previous drafts of DeVore's script were inexplicably wiped from said computer during the same timeframe; police claimed that DeVore's vehicle careened off the highway, yet DeVore's widow was troubled by the absence of visible damage to the guardrail at the scene of the alleged accident; and how come no one noticed an SUV sitting in the water beneath a busy highway for a whole year? Perhaps the whole incident is too like a conspiracy movie to be a real conspiracy - but many remain troubled by De Vore's death.

Despite the CIA's professed desire to be more open about the role it plays in Holly-wood, it's hard to take its newfound transparency too seriously. After all, what use is a covert agency that does not act covertly, even if some of its activities are public? And if it is still not open about the truth of events decades ago, many of which have spilled into the public domain accidently, how can we be sure it is telling the truth about its activities now? The spy may have come in from the cold, but he still finds shelter in the dark of the cinema.

[barracuda]

I don't think that's giving the reader enough credit.

If this thread is any indication, it would seem there are still a large contingent of people on the board that consider keyword hijacking analysis and the accompanying search engine research technique to be a valid method of revealing hidden psyops, even though it has been demonstrated here that there is no documentation whatsoever which can verify that such a method has ever been used for propaganda purposes by the CIA or operatives of the US government. It is still extremely rare that anyone asks Hugh for real evidence to back up his assertions. When that question is posed he immediately goes into predictable modes of defensiveness, none of which address the underlying evidentiary issue in any serious way, but rely upon the credulousness of the reader to posit and accept a coincidence too large to be accidental.

As well, the other side of the coin, the more dangerous and debilitating side, comes less from lending credence to Hugh's theories and more from Hugh's theories destroying productive discussion on the forum and painting everything with the ridiculous brush. Even with the institution of the KWH rule, he's still able to function as a disruptor, maybe even more effectively than ever. He falls back on the unfairness of the rule, but if you look at the Meme Management subforum, he hasn't started a thread there since last October. And I can't even find an example post-gremlins thread where he began a new thread to discuss an idea on an existing thread.

Let's look at some recent posts:

Evo Morales:

> Presidente Evo Morales? Another left-winger in Monroe Doctrine South America?
> Father Frank Morales? Project Censored award-winner for articles on urban police militarization and REX 84 martial law? Then at the center of the controversial deaths of CIA-exposing Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake?

Gee, what is CIA-Hollywood going to do about this double liability named "Morales?" Double or nothing, that's what.
Hijack it and link it to the capitalist insult, RED.

From the CIA-NYTimes-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/arts/ ... .html?_r=1

ARTS, BRIEFLY
A New Role for Molina

Compiled by CAROL VOGEL
Published: July 25, 2010

He was Mark Rothko, the tortured artist, in the Tony-winning play “Red,” which ended its Broadway run last month. Now Alfred Molina will be the one torturing others. The British actor is joining the cast of the new “Law & Order: Los Angeles” as Deputy District Attorney Morales. (The show will have its premiere in the fall, though a specific start date — and the first name of Molina’s character — have not been announced, according to The Associated Press.) While the original “Law & Order” ended its 20-year run in May, “Law & Order: Los Angeles” will join other spinoffs in the series that are still being produced, “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit” and “Law & Order: Criminal Intent.”

Can you find anything sensical here? A character in a show about Los Angeles is named Morales, one of the most common hispanic names in the world, and this is somehow proof of some conspiracy. It must have seemed obvious to give the name to a district attorney character, because the name means "moral". And how do we tie the name of the Rothko play to this at all? By proximity within the little blurb presented here? But most of all, who cares, when absolutely not a shred of evidence is presented for the assertion to begin with?

There is never ANY evidence. None. And yet, there's serious questions right at the top of this page, asking Hugh for his "expert" opinion on various matters keyword, blithely secure in the knowledge that they can learn something important here. Frankly, there's more conclusive evidence that aliens have been captured by the U.S. military than there is for the KWH theory. A lot more.

And yet, how many times do we get threads or comments here in which posters point to some random homonymic relationship and then cry, "Hugh?" to alert the resident coinkydink theorist that meat is on the hook?

And what do we get for all this? As c2w says, you get nothing that gives you power. You receive the endless understanding that the CIA, or some other yet-to-be-named government operators are endlessly producing subliminal hijinks against which your only defense is to become a believer and join Hugh in looking for the clues of said hijinks. Sell everything you have, give the money to the poor, and come and follow Hugh. This is not revelation or empowerment.

A few more:

- Boondocks. Do you think he watched either the movie he referenced or the TV show? DOes it matter? What does his post actually do? It discredits the subject material and disrupts the thread.

- The film Inception is a deflection of DreamsEnd and Theresa Duncan/Jeremy Blake, via the main character's name, "Cobb" being tied to Ty Cobb and then, next step, Ty Brown, and the dream in the movie ending. Are you down?

- Greg Rambo. Did you ever actually google Greg Rambo? It's a rather common name, in fact, and is commonly linked to a famous murder spree. And guess what? If you look closely, there's actually another link to Alfred CIAMolinas.

- Elisabeth Smart was kidnapped to deflect attention from S.M.A.R.T.

- From the same post, the movie Salt is also about Theresa Duncan. Why the sudden spate of interest in Theresa Duncan, I don't know. Is Hugh a Ty Brown fan?

- The Bermuda Triangle is a deflection of the heroin trade in the Golden Triangle.

- Postulated hidden universes in the center of black holes is a deflection of the AIDS problem via some weird conjecture regarding negro anuses. Yes, that's correct. The anuses of negros. Their anuses. Actual anii, if you will. With something in them.

And on and on, without a shred of evidence. These are just the more radically troubling posts of the last three weeks or so.

There's a pattern here, and I have a harder and harder time viewing it as benign. I have no doubt that the government attempts to influence films when it can for propaganda purposes. There is evidence for that. And that's all I require, a shred, something to anchor to, which is why I began this thread.

[elfismiles]

I know these guys articles / book have been cited here somewhere but since folks have raised INDEPENDENCE DAY, THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL and since the essence of this discussion is about Mil/Intel influence of films...

WOO ON YOU HUGH!!!

EDIT: I see at least one of these guys articles was just posted upstream.

Yes, as Cuda rightfully demands: EVIDENCE!! Where the frak is it? These guys at least seem to have done more than just arm-chair research.

The Lies Are Out There: Is Hollywood's love affair with aliens based simply on its desire to make money, or has it been used by the US government and military for their own mysterious ends?
[aka "The Deep Politics of Hollywood: Close Encounters with the Pentagon"]
by Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford / July 2009
http://www.forteantimes.com/features/ar ... there.html

Perception Management: Past and Present

Bizarrely – and for reasons not entirely clear – the U.S. government has taken a keen interest in Hollywood’s flying saucer movies since the early days of the phenomenon. Official efforts to debunk UFOs through media channels originated with the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel which, in 1953, decided that public excitement about flying saucers should be actively discouraged. The panel recommended “That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the… aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired,” and that this should “be accomplished by mass media such as television [and] motion pictures...” with specific reference to Walt Disney.i

Unambiguous evidence for the Robertson Panel's covert impact on media representations of UFOs is found in the CBS TV broadcast of UFOs: Friend, Foe, or Fantasy? (1966), a documentary narrated by Walter Cronkite. In a personal letter addressed to former Robertson Panel Secretary Frederick C. Durant, Dr Thornton Page confides that he “helped organize the CBS TV show around the Robertson Panel conclusions,”ii even though this was thirteen years later and despite the fact that he was personally sympathetic to the existence of flying saucers.

Government concern over, or involvement in, UFO movies continues to be evidenced in more modern Hollywood productions. Take, for example, the 1996 alien invasion blockbuster Independence Day, which, despite its proud championing of American values and leadership, was denied cooperation from the Department of Defense (DoD) due in large part to a plotline concerning Area 51 (a super-secret military facility in the Nevada desert long rumoured to be the testing ground for captured extraterrestrial technologies) and the so-called ‘Roswell Incident.’ The Pentagon specifically requested that “any government connection” to Area 51 or to Roswell be eliminated from the film – a request apparently based on the ridiculous assumption that both the Roswell Incident and Area 51 were not already known to half of America.iii

...

Holloman Air Base and the Alien Carrot

Interestingly, echoes of Emenegger’s deal with the Department of Defense would resound decades later in the production of the aforementioned Transformers (2007) when director Michael Bay was granted the rare privilege of shooting scenes of his alien movie at the Pentagon. The DoD even threw open the gates to Holloman Air Force Base – the highly sensitive location of the alleged alien landing described to Emenegger (and it would do so again for the Transformers sequel). To this day, the only two Hollywood filmmakers to have been granted access to Holloman are Emenegger and Bay – both of whose films dealt with the subject of alien visitation – and this in flat contradiction to the DoD’s policy as stated to other filmmakers that it will not work with UFO-related productions because “UFOs do not exist.”

...

Disney and the Aliens

Intriguing testimony along these lines came from Oscar-winning Disney animator Ward Kimball. Kimball was best known for bringing to life beloved Disney characters such as Jiminy Cricket, The Cheshire Cat and The Mad Hatter, and for redesigning Mickey Mouse in 1938. He also worked as Directing Animator on the Disney classics like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1938), Pinocchio (1940), and Fantasia (1940).

In 1979, Kimball claimed that in the mid-1950s the USAF had approached Walt Disney himself to request his cooperation on a documentary about UFOs that would help acclimatise the American public to the reality of extraterrestrials. Even more intriguing was that, in exchange for his cooperation, the USAF would apparently supply Disney with real UFO footage for exclusive use in his documentary. According to Kimball, Disney accepted the deal and began work immediately on the USAF project, which would not have been unusual considering Disney’s established relationship with the U.S. government (during WWII Disney made approximately 80 propaganda shorts for the military).

While Disney waited patiently for the USAF to provide the UFO footage, his animators produced conceptual designs of what an alien might look like. Predictably, the offer of the UFO footage was eventually withdrawn, provoking Kimball to challenge the official military liaison for the project, a USAF Colonel who told Kimball that “there was indeed plenty of UFO footage, but that neither [he], nor anyone else was going to get access to it.”xii Needless to say, the project was abandoned and forgotten by all but the few who had worked on it.

The Glittering Robes of Entertainment

In connection with research she was conducting for a UFO documentary in 1983, Emmy award winning filmmaker and journalist Linda Moulton Howe was told by government sources that the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which depicted an alien landing in Washington D.C., was, in her words, “inspired by the CIA,” and “one of the first government tests of public reaction to such an event.”xiii As farfetched as this may seem, the screenwriter for The Day the Earth Stood Still, Edmund H. North, was actively serving as a Major in the Army Signal Corps just months before being selected by 20th Century Fox to pen the script. During his time in the Corps, North had been in charge of “training and educational” documentaries, and later established himself as a Hollywood scribe of patriotic war films including Sink the Bismark! (1960) and Submarine X-1 (1968), as well as Patton (1970), for which he received an Oscar – all of which raises the possibility that he maintained an official or quasi-official role in the government’s cinematic propaganda campaigns throughout his career.

The man responsible for overseeing the production of The Day the Earth Stood Still – 20th Century Fox production chief Darryl Zanuck – was himself in charge of an Army Signal Corps documentary unit during the Second World Warxiv and said that, “If you have something worth while to say, dress it up in the glittering robes of entertainment and you will find a ready market… without entertainment, no propaganda film is worth a dime.”xv

Matthew Alford is a lecturer in the department of Drama: Theatre, Film, and Television at the University of Bristol. He is writing a book about propaganda in Hollywood called "Projecting Power: American Foreign Policy and the Hollywood Propaganda System"

Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy, Pluto Press, 2010.
http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745329826&

PART ONE: CONTROLLING THE DREAM FACTORY
1 Hollywood Screened
2 Hollywood Deactivated
PART TWO: POWER PROJECTED
3 War Films
4 Comedies
5 Action Adventure
6 Science Fiction
7 Political Drama
8 The Low Budget Battlefield
PART THREE: REEL VIOLENCE
9 Conclusions
Endnotes
Filmography
Index

Matthew Alford MPhil[B], PhD has taught at the Universities of Bath and Bristol and is now an independent scholar working on issues of American cinema, power and politics.

Robbie Graham is associate lecturer in film at Stafford College

Body of Lies: The CIA's involvement with US film-making
Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham / The Guardian, Nov 14, 2008
... Body of Lies ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov ... dley-scott

Lights, Camera… Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood
by Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham / Global Research, January 21, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=11921

The Deep Politics of Hollywood: In the Parents` Best Interests
by Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham / Global Research, February 26, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=12465

"A Propaganda Model for Hollywood", Westminster Papers for Communication and Culture, Vol 6(2), 2009.
http://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/ass ... Alford.pdf

* Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford, "Spielberg's Saucer Secrets", Filmfax: The Magazine of Unusual Film and Television, July 2010.
* Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford, "District 9 is lucky to have avoided a close encounter with the Pentagon" Guardian online, September 4th 2009.
* Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford, "The Lies Are Out There", Fortean Times, July 2009.
* Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford, "The Power Behind the Screen", New Statesman, January 29th, 2009.
* Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, "An Offer They Couldn't Refuse", Guardian, November 14, 2008.
* Matthew Alford, "Noam Chomsky, Comedian?", Chortle, January 21st 2008.
* Scott Lucas interviewed by Matthew Alford, "Celebrating Dissent: Scholarship and Politics in the New American Century", 49th Parallel: An Interdisciplinary Journal of North American Studies, Issue 13, Spring 2004.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... Journalism

[Simulist]

If this thread is any indication, it would seem there are still a large contingent of people on the board that consider keyword hijacking analysis and the accompanying search engine research technique to be a valid method of revealing hidden psyops, even though it has been demonstrated here that there is no documentation whatsoever which can verify that such a method has ever been used for propaganda purposes by the CIA or operatives of the US government.

The CIA knew you'd say that.

That's why CIA-Hollywood produced The Method in 2005, a psyops decoy movie about (get this) "dirty mind games."

You dirty mind... man.

[matrixdutch]

Oh, so this is sort of like the stuff that Goro Adachi does?

[barracuda]

I think there are similarities, matrixdutch, a significant distinction being the quantity and quality of information Hugh brings here regarding virtually every other aspect of the subject but this one. Adachi is pure stream of consciousness entrail reading, while Hugh's flavor is generally leavened with the reality of US government psyops. Hugh considers Goro to be "random woo".

[matrixdutch]

I think there are similarities, matrixdutch, a significant distinction being the quantity and quality of information Hugh brings here regarding virtually every other aspect of the subject but this one. Adachi is pure stream of consciousness entrail reading, while Hugh's flavor is generally leavened with the reality of US government psyops. Hugh considers Goro to be a "random woo".

Ahhh, much clarified! Thanks barracuda. I used to be a subscriber to Goro...I was thorougly entertained by his posts, but never took it as serious as he did perhaps....but still enjoyed it!