Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.

[elfismiles]

Am glad to see that Hugh is not just a SynchroMystic but also a Dream Symbology Interpreter. Thank you Hugh, for the link to the "Study on methodologies or adapted technological tools to efficiently detect violent radical content on the Internet." Where exactly did you find the link to that? Was it here:
http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE ... XT:EN:HTML

- SMiles

Inception
viewtopic.php?p=350100#p350100

Psyops is not 'synchromysticism.'
It is subtle and veiled to accomplish both subliminal effects and plausible deniability.

It is a combination of:
> military doctrines - psyops, counterinsurgency, stability operations, etc.
> neuroscience - memory reinforcement or interference
> social science - cultural transmission, support of role models and stereotypes, etc.
> marketing game theory - grabbing market share of hearts and minds


Coincidence/Synchronicity/Jung/RAW/QM, etc
viewtopic.php?p=273344#p273344

The OP article strikes me as a not especially skilled attempt to “ape” the style and tone of an elitist mind-set, for reasons that probably don’t go much beyond personal amusement. Unlike “Silent Weapons,” doesn’t seem to illuminate much the mystery of Masonic Sorcery Theater and/or cultural psyops. The terms it employs seem too brazen, clumsy, and literal to suggest intelligence(double)-speak, which is generally euphemistic to the point of obscurity. Would an authentic inside source of social engineering info use such terms as “zombies” or refer to Stanley Kubrick movies? Would it state things in such simple, straight-forward and user-friendly terminology? If so, to what end? So that laypersons at RI could understand it, perhaps?

The debate between Hugh and Sounder has raised some interesting questions. At what point can a manufactured meme (a psyop) be seen as separate from a natural meme, such as pertains to the collective zeitgeist itself? Though I’ve got nothing against the arguments Hugh makes (and I definitely value the research he has done), I don’t think it’s possible finally to separate the one from the other: i.e., psyop movies (and CIA Hollywood) from the greater, “synchromystic” (sorry) operation that is the Universe. It’s Russian dolls: any agenda you care to map always exists inside another, greater agenda, and so is informed and shaped by it.

"Occult Technology of Power" and Intel Agencies
viewtopic.php?p=238944#p238944

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!

[brainpanhandler]

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.

Yes, really.

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.

I guess I figured that went without saying, so I didn't say it.

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.

True enough. But it's not necessarily an either/or proposition.

IOW: Propagandistic blockbuster movies don't make mindlessly jingoistic populations out of their audiences, honey.

Well of course not. But being bombarded by an endless stream of them or similar messages in other media since early childhood might have some social engineering effect, enough of an effect to make it worth the effort of the creators of such crap.

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.

I don't think that's either/or either. It's pretty clearly a dialectical process. I think it's important to remember that ID is clearly intended to be intelligble and watchable by children. I mean the plot and the screenplay are pretty much gradeschool level or at least what gradeschool level used to be. The part of the american populace with an inner mindless jingoist was not born that way. Yes, it is highly likely, in fact pretty much certain, that other forces in the lives of the inner-mindless-jingoist-infected played a much more significant role in the formation of such attitudes.

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 don't understand.

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.

You've said as much a number of times and I've given that a fair amount of thought. I think it's worth noting that there are other more powerful factors at play, as you say. HMW's KWH theories don't make mindlessly agitated, weak and silent populations out of the board's readership, honey.

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

I'm fairly certain you don't understand what my particular line is, which isn't surprising because I don't think I've ever clearly defined one on kwh.

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."

Agreed, at least to my current knowledge. I mentioned it for other fairly unrelated somewhat ot reasons.

[brainpanhandler]

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

I just skimmed the thread and I could only find one oblique indication that a member participating in this thread gives any serious credence to the idea of kwh in the more specific sense that you and C2W and I and others have always understood it to mean. Hugh's rebreanding upthread of kwh as a shorthand umbrella term that includes all manner of decoys and covert propaganda techniques is to my memory something new.

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.

Agreed. I've been content to let others do this. Maybe I shouldn't have been. Maybe that is true of others as well

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.

Yah, there's that, although it's got to be a pretty thin slice of the population that looks at the broad scope of topics discussed here seriously only to happen upon Hugh's KWH theories and decide it's all ridiculous bunk.

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.

It seems to me that's reading alot into 82-28's questions that's not there on the face of it.

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?

Guilty?

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.

See my response to C2W along these lines.

And that's all I require, a shred, something to anchor to, which is why I began this thread.

I've followed your conversations with Hugh as I believe, based on views, much of the board has as well. I've also followed C2W's exchanges with Hugh closely. I have yet to see the evidence either. Not even a clear, succinct definition of kwh. The best I've gotten there is some amalgam of Zipf's law and Interference theory as the underlying principles. C2W says there's not a shred of evidence that recall can be impaired with linguistic techniques. I've looked for it, as I've also looked for evidence that kwh has been employed by governmental agents/agencies in the way Hugh asserts. I haven't really found what I'm looking for or at least I've not found evidence that I thought would pass muster with either of you or indeed myself.

[DrVolin]

Although I rarely follow his specific examples, I think it would be a shame if Hugh stopped posting them. They are always thought provoking and yes, entertaining. As for the general principles he is advocating, I follow him quite well. I have little doubt that intelligence and other government agencies (as well as shadowy non-government interest groups) are capable of significantly influencing media when they need to. You don't have to do a frame by frame study of the Shaggy DA to realize that something is up.

But I generally go for simpler, more obvious and primary plots than Hugh seems to. Independence Day (1996) has been mentioned. It came out the same year as the Tom Clancy novel Executive Decisions. In both, a president/pilot saves America after a devastating attack that involves destroying the Capitol building and constitutional government along with it, leaving only the executive branch for continuity of government. This is 9/11 minus Shanksville. More modest but equally obvious operations include the endlessly entertaining Golan-Globus production of the 1980s. Those are overtly propaganda, and not too secretly state enhanced. I won't even go into State of Play.

As for KWH itself, it is indeed all around us, and is the whole reason Google is a viable business. But again, the actual instances are cruder but no less dangerous than the ones Hugh suggests.

[Nordic]

I have little doubt that intelligence and other government agencies (as well as shadowy non-government interest groups) are capable of significantly influencing media when they need to.

"Ground Zero Mosque"


I don't think anyone here would dispute that the media is heavily influenced, downright co-opted, by the propaganda ministries.

That's not the issue.

What's less than rigorous, to say the least, is to make the jump from "the government/corporate conspiracy nexus heavily influences the media" to "the C.I.A. suddenly whipped up a movie in a matter of hours with a certain word in the title to somehow hijack people's thought patterns in regards to that specific word in ways that I can't even explain". THAT is ridiculous.

I run into people all the time who think that since the government is involved in conspiracies that anything, and I mean anything, they read as far as conspiracies go must be true. I.E. the followers of Wayne Madsen and Sascha Faal and others ....

[compared2what?]

I've followed your conversations with Hugh as I believe, based on views, much of the board has as well. I've also followed C2W's exchanges with Hugh closely. I have yet to see the evidence either. Not even a clear, succinct definition of kwh. The best I've gotten there is some amalgam of Zipf's law and Interference theory as the underlying principles. C2W says there's not a shred of evidence that recall can be impaired with linguistic techniques. I've looked for it, as I've also looked for evidence that kwh has been employed by governmental agents/agencies in the way Hugh asserts. I haven't really found what I'm looking for or at least I've not found evidence that I thought would pass muster with either of you or indeed myself.

If I've said that recall cannot be impaired with linguistic techniques, it was very careless of me to do so. It absolutely can be. For one thing, you've only got so much storage capacity available, loosely speaking. So if someone just keeps lobbing the exact same kind of input at you for long enough, eventually you'll start striking out. Or....More simply put, the number of words a person can commit to memory at any one fixed point in time is finite for everybody sooner or later. Although the same person might have a significantly higher or lower capacity both for remembering words and for recalling them at one time than at another.

Which probably goes without saying, I guess. I mean, that's why friends don't let friends take the Wechsler Memory Scales drunk, as the PSA's on TV used to say back in the days of my white-winged and innocent girlhood. Or so I dimly recall, at least.

In any event. Loosely speaking, that's one way of demonstrating the validity of interference theory, as a matter of fact. (I mean "by having people memorize word-list after word-list," not "by preventing people from drinking and taking psychometric tests," obviously.) And, at least in theory, that's just one among several ways that words actually could be used to impair verbal recall.

So whatever I did say, what I should have said was:

There's not a shred of evidence that a person's ability to recall semantic memories (ie -- his or her store of abstract information and knowledge, which comes in many forms and isn't exclusively or even primarily contingent on verbal recall, necessarily, such as -- let's say -- what he or she knows about the Vietnam War) can be impaired by using movies or television shows casually and briefly to expose him or her to passively received words that are closely related in some way to words that also happen to be stored in that person's brain in association with his or her knowledge of the Vietnam War.

Or at least not as far as I know. Plus it would sort of run counter to whatever little general understanding of cognitive neuroscience that anyone's managed to achieve so far if it could, I think. But I'm not totally sure, I don't know enough biology or chemistry or (ad infinitum) to follow all that many neuroscientifically based arguments very far and amn't qualified to evaluate their validity even when I can.

And....As for the post that was actually a response to mine and addressed to me and stuff: To whatever extent I do understand your position, I'm not aware of really even disagreeing with you enough to merit calling whatever differences we might have "disagreement." So I guess that unless you see someplace to go with it that I don't, all I've got to say is:

Well, fine. If that's how it is, then let's just agree to agree in misleadingly disagreeable terms, formally and stylistically speaking, okay???

Yours,

c2w

[brainpanhandler]

C2W says there's not a shred of evidence that recall can be impaired with linguistic techniques.

retracted

There's not a shred of evidence that a person's ability to recall semantic memories (ie -- his or her store of abstract information and knowledge, which comes in many forms and isn't exclusively or even primarily contingent on verbal recall, necessarily, such as -- let's say -- what he or she knows about the Vietnam War) can be impaired by using movies or television shows casually and briefly to expose him or her to passively received words that are closely related in some way to words that also happen to be stored in that person's brain in association with his or her knowledge of the Vietnam War.

My memory is a bit hazy, but honestly I cannot recall that Hugh has ever asserted this, which might come as a surprise to you and many others. Generally I think he is referring to Proactive Interference theory and not Retroactive Interference theory and even then his emphasis is on children. Maybe what I'm recalling is only what I want to recall and find somewhat plausible. I tend to skim Hugh or not read him at all when he's being particularly ridiculous.

So I guess that unless you see someplace to go with it that I don't....

I would be interested in your opinion on the validity of the argument that Inoculation via targeted (keywords) Proactive Interference could work to steer some small portion of a target audience away from information deemed injurious to the interests of the whatevers capable of doing such a thing.


Proactive Interference is the "forgetting [of information] due to interference from the traces of events or learning that occurred prior to the materials to be remembered".[5] Proactive Interference occurs when in any given context, past memories inhibit an individual’s full potential to retain new memories. It has been hypothesized that forgetting from working memory would be non-existent if not for proactive interference.[6] A real life example of Proactive Interference is if a person had the same credit card number for a number of years and memorized that number over time. Then if the credit card was compromised, and a new card dispensed to the client, the person would then have great difficulty memorizing the new credit card number as the old credit card number is so ingrained in their minds. The competition between the new and old credit card numbers cause Proactive Interference.


Here's the thing... people don't like forgetting things, they don't like being confused. People tend to avoid what they don't like if that is an option. We're not talking about preventing people from learning whole swaths of information. We're talking about tipping the balance. Is it possible that certain, specific keywords and phrases can act like doorways to other information? For instance the title of a book or a person's name? And if that's possible then isn't it possible that Proactive Interference could be used on a target audience to attempt to steer them away from those doorways? And even if the effectiveness of such a technique were highly dubious, isn't it possible that usg/alpha agencies with unlimited resources and little to no oversight would do it anyway? Since when is it reasonable to suppose the usg spends money and resources only on projects nefarious or benevolent that are based on sound science and research?

Well, fine. If that's how it is, then let's just agree to agree in misleadingly disagreeable terms, formally and stylistically speaking, okay???

Very misleadingly disagreeable. You're one of my favoritest people's on the whole internets, as you well know and I'm just happy to still be able to read your voice on occasion.

Always.

[IanEye]

More modest but equally obvious operations include the endlessly entertaining Golan-Globus production of the 1980s.
Those are overtly propaganda, and not too secretly state enhanced.

[compared2what?]

C2W says there's not a shred of evidence that recall can be impaired with linguistic techniques.

retracted

There's not a shred of evidence that a person's ability to recall semantic memories (ie -- his or her store of abstract information and knowledge, which comes in many forms and isn't exclusively or even primarily contingent on verbal recall, necessarily, such as -- let's say -- what he or she knows about the Vietnam War) can be impaired by using movies or television shows casually and briefly to expose him or her to passively received words that are closely related in some way to words that also happen to be stored in that person's brain in association with his or her knowledge of the Vietnam War.

My memory is a bit hazy, but honestly I cannot recall that Hugh has ever asserted this, which might come as a surprise to you and many others. Generally I think he is referring to Proactive Interference theory and not Retroactive Interference theory and even then his emphasis is on children. Maybe what I'm recalling is only what I want to recall and find somewhat plausible. I tend to skim Hugh or not read him at all when he's being particularly ridiculous.

Well. I've certainly read numerous posts by Hugh in which I understood him to be asserting that keyword hijacking could act both proactively and retroactively to impair, impede and/or prohibit what amounts, in effect, to cognition itself. In adults.

But I have to admit that's ultimately just my best-effort, good-faith guess. Because he tends to conflate or combine the colloquial and the cognitive-psych connotation of words like "recall" in ways that vary from one sentence to the next.

Which is neither at all uncommon nor more than a very venial sin of usage, at most, objectively speaking. I just have trouble working around it personally, it's kind of my own little reading-comprehension handicap. So I should probably do a little exacting diligence on the reliability of my own understanding on that score before proceeding to the essay question part of the post.

Shorter version: I'm punting on the substance for now, except to say...

I would be interested in your opinion on the validity of the argument that Inoculation via targeted (keywords) Proactive Interference could work to steer some small portion of a target audience away from information deemed injurious to the interests of the whatevers capable of doing such a thing.


Proactive Interference is the "forgetting [of information] due to interference from the traces of events or learning that occurred prior to the materials to be remembered".[5] Proactive Interference occurs when in any given context, past memories inhibit an individual’s full potential to retain new memories. It has been hypothesized that forgetting from working memory would be non-existent if not for proactive interference.[6] A real life example of Proactive Interference is if a person had the same credit card number for a number of years and memorized that number over time. Then if the credit card was compromised, and a new card dispensed to the client, the person would then have great difficulty memorizing the new credit card number as the old credit card number is so ingrained in their minds. The competition between the new and old credit card numbers cause Proactive Interference.


Here's the thing... people don't like forgetting things, they don't like being confused. People tend to avoid what they don't like if that is an option. We're not talking about preventing people from learning whole swaths of information. We're talking about tipping the balance. Is it possible that certain, specific keywords and phrases can act like doorways to other information? For instance the title of a book or a person's name? And if that's possible then isn't it possible that Proactive Interference could be used on a target audience to attempt to steer them away from those doorways? And even if the effectiveness of such a technique were highly dubious, isn't it possible that usg/alpha agencies with unlimited resources and little to no oversight would do it anyway? Since when is it reasonable to suppose the usg spends money and resources only on projects nefarious or benevolent that are based on sound science and research?

...that anything's possible.

But if your cognitive psych theory is just going to leave self-schemas out of the equation entirely, you either have to have (a) an explicitly stated and damn good reason for their absence; or (b) a very clearly articulated definition of precisely what the fuck manner of being these "people" of whom you speak actually are, as well as what precisely which of their inherent qualities led you to believe that psychological studies of human cognition might be applicable to them.

Well, fine. If that's how it is, then let's just agree to agree in misleadingly disagreeable terms, formally and stylistically speaking, okay???

Very misleadingly disagreeable. You're one of my favoritest people's on the whole internets, as you well know and I'm just happy to still be able to read your voice on occasion.

Always.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Even if Hugh is right (which he may be), you're asking him to present primary source data for what would surely be a covert operation.

National Security Council Directive 10/2 defined covert operations as actions conducted by the United States against foreign states “which are so planned and executed that any U.S. Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the U.S. Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”

I realize that the directive only authorized covert action against "foreign states", but my point here is that the very nature of covert operations precludes primary source data, so we're stuck with citizen journalists/detectives such as Hugh, doing their best to prove the unprovable.

Why Hugh doesn't just say that is beyond me.

[compared2what?]

bph?

You're under absolutely no obligation and I forbid you to feel any need to reply. But:

You know what you could do if you wanted to do me a favor while I was making a rare and daring excursion into the land of the sleeping?

Read this post and tell me if I'm wrong to understand it as pretty much incapable of any kind of meaning at all absent an implicit foundational premise that, were it stated, would be something along the lines of "Keyword hijacking cam act both proactively and retroactively to impair, impede and/or prohibit what amounts, in effect, to cognition itself in adults."

What? An adult discussion about psyops history and science with out snarky tweens and troll mods? No!
I was just banned for 7 days by barracuda for discussing this topic. Beware.

.....
OK, I've perused a few of these links.
......
My understanding of Hugh's KWH theory is that the control points are at the "keyword" level, i.e. at the level of the atomic substructure of the meme. I don't understand how this can work..
......

See Zipf's Law. Studies of brain function have been all about memory and words for all the 20th century.
The many thousands of words in our vocabulary is like a deck of cards where keywords are the higher-value face cards. So the brain's MNEMONIC behaviour is a keyword economy even before the internet comes along and search engines magnify this 'out of sight out of mind'-dynamic.

So keyword visibility is a form of planting the definition flag on the cognitivie surface of the brain.
The spooks used SEMANTIC PRIMING for decades before the internet came along.
It is just a way to use metaphor or a bunch of other ways of evoking keywords, themes, and phrases in memory.

And the younger the brain the more sticking power to the first definition/association with a keyword.

Mnemonics follows a path-of-least-resistance chain of associations where keywords linked to other keywords create a close-proximity domino effect of one leading to another aided by covert repetition in decoy narratives.
This is REINFORCEMENT. ("Finding Mnemo...." yup.)

INTEFERENCE THEORY and INOCULATION THEORY do just the opposite, creating impedence between keyword associations through mirror narratives that have key components exactly reversed, like a fake city map where all the one-way streets go in the opposite direction to mess up your ability to navigate.

None of this memory science has been negated in 1990s.
It has been made more sophisticated with things liked MASKED PRIMING.
The Jim Carrey movie called 'The Mask' is like a psyoperator training film, a bit of insider humor illustrating/decoying the cognitive tricks-of-the-trade that refer to a paper by Posner and Snyder (1975) about directing attention.
"Pose"..."snide"...etc.

If KWH is to have validity, then hitting a few atomic elements can have an effect on a whole narrative; in other words, the effects are highly nonlinear. OK, fine....

Exactly right. The keyword effects ARE nonlinear. *ting*

I fail to comprehend, at a similar level of detail, the neutralizing effect of obscuring a keyword in one meme by using a similar-sounding keyword in an entirely different meme in an entirely different narrative. This can only work in an associative framework that is more common to my understanding of the theory and practice of magick.

Competing associations with keywords, themes, and images.
There's a game theory logic to this basic strategy of COMPETING ASSOCIATIONS to pre-bias the brain, especially young ones, face-to-face discussion, and the internet.
I

f I am going to be convinced by any datum presented in support of KWH, Hugh will have to show the following: (1) the ultimate target meme is a critical component of a target narrative [and to his credit Hugh usually does this];

Right.

(2) the catalyzing meme (i.e. proximal target) is potent enough in the culture at large - either at the liminal or subliminal level - that a diversion from the ultimate target to the proximal target actually has a high probability. Hugh usually fails in this latter condition.

>Rambo? Do you think of Sylvester Stallone's fictional character or Greg Rambo at Kent State?

>Leonard McCoy? Do you think of the fictional doctor on 'Star Trek' or the real Leonard V. McCoy in CIA counterintelligence on the wrong side of a dangerous schizm related to Dealey Plaza?

>Fonzie? Do you think of the greaser on 'Happy Days' or the first lawyer to take on Arlen Spector's 'magic bullet' disinfo then working for the House Select Committee on Assassinations?

>Captain Kirk? Do you think of the fictional space ship captain or the former head of the Office of Naval Intelligence who was blabbing about the Pearl Harbor hoax in the early 1960s?
etc.

>Howard Beale? Do you think of the crazy suicidal ranting news anchor on 'Network' (1977) or the Australian politician who wrote his Cold War tell-all memoirs in 1977, Sir Howard Beale?

I could give you hundreds of examples from around 1938 on.

Because it would be a real time-saver if I wasn't. (Wrong.) It was the very first search result to turn up. I am technically a little sleep-deprived right at the moment, however. So wrongness has does probably have better than decent odds.

Also, I don't want to be an ogre about it or anything, but I believe that's a wildly subjective and apparently virtually arbitrary interpretation of Zipf's Law. The validity of which i believe there's reason to question.

I can't really go much farther than belief on that one, though, in all fairness. Because: Math. I can't understand it. And am kinda-sorta totally unqualified even to form (let alone to state) my own opinion about it on its most basic level, therefore.

[barracuda]

Even if Hugh is right (which he may be), you're asking him to present primary source data for what would surely be a covert operation.
...
Why Hugh doesn't just say that is beyond me.

It's a legitimate point, Bruce. I don't feel that every covert op would leave traces which can identifiably be coorelated with their activities, but it never hurts to ask. We are, after all, considering a psyop which Hugh alleges has been in effect fairly continuously since at least 1938, seventy years, and which is said to be in effect in industries which are not known for their ability to consistently keep secrets, to say the least.

The idea that such primary source data does not exist by reason of the covert nature of the op, though, doesn't further facilitate or demonstrate the validity of assertions on the level of the "black hole" post, or the Theresa Duncan/Inception" idea in any reasonable way, either. Just because we don't have evidence for KWH doesn't mean these leaps of faith are correct, or make sense, or are really anything but homonymic idea connections which happened to occur to Hugh. Which is precisely the context in which I find them the most interesting anyway.

And no small part of my point here is to demonstrate to Hugh that the variety of "woo" type discussions, which he has consistently dismissed on the basis of lack of evidence, or on evidence based solely upon his KWH theory and it's interpretations of those discussions, exist on an evidentiary basis with standing just as firm or shaky as KWH, just on the off chance that he might lighten up on his disparaging remarks in those threads.

...it's got to be a pretty thin slice of the population that looks at the broad scope of topics discussed here seriously only to happen upon Hugh's KWH theories and decide it's all ridiculous bunk.

I guess so. I usually consider that there are about thirty people reading this site in total anyway, and that half of those thirty are sockpuppets of the other half. So I'll grant you that the repurcussions of any activity here are rather limited, which is another reason to reconsider any notion that we made the New York Times in the encrypted form of an endangered manatee article.

[Nordic]

Even if Hugh is right (which he may be), you're asking him to present primary source data for what would surely be a covert operation.

Well that's the perfect closed-loop mental workings of the paranoid schizophrenic.

Like the time I met the woman who told me about the UFO she'd seen with her daughter, who'd also seen it. Finally, a witness! I asked her what her daughter thought of that now. "Oh, she can't remember it, they erased her memory of it". Okay. They erased her memory of it, but not yours. Right.

Listen, how can we have a serious talk about Hugh without bringing this up?

It's the elephant in the room.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Even if Hugh is right (which he may be), you're asking him to present primary source data for what would surely be a covert operation.

Well that's the perfect closed-loop mental workings of the paranoid schizophrenic.

Like the time I met the woman who told me about the UFO she'd seen with her daughter, who'd also seen it. Finally, a witness! I asked her what her daughter thought of that now. "Oh, she can't remember it, they erased her memory of it". Okay. They erased her memory of it, but not yours. Right.

Listen, how can we have a serious talk about Hugh without bringing this up?

It's the elephant in the room.

All I'm saying, Nordic, is that instead of Hugh jumping through flaming hoops of self-referentiality, he could save himself a lot of time and trouble by just saying: look guys, I can't prove my theory, partly because if it exists, it's most likely been designed to be virtually unprovable..

Which isn't to say that this thread isn't entertaining, in a train wreck sort of a way, but sheesh, c'mon guys, Hugh's not going to suddenly hit us all with page 728 of Wild Bill Donovan's diary, or some previously obscure Mother Jones article blowing the doors off of KWH. THAT type of primary source doesn't exist, and we all know it.

Carry on.

[barracuda]

THAT type of primary source doesn't exist, and we all know it.

But that's not to say it couldn't. We have primary documentation of dozens if not hundreds of covert ops, all the way up to the Kennedy assassination. Operation Northwoods, rendition, covert wars, CIA assassinations, the secret team, UFo coverups, faked Osama tapes, dirty tricks, false flags, etc. It's not patently ridiculous to hope for. And neither is it ridiculous to permit the lack of such documentation to color one's view of the theory.