The Hugh Manatee Challenge

[Sepka]

(But anyone else who wants to try it is welcome too)

Hugh, I like you, and I think you're prefectly sincere in your beliefs, but I also think those beliefs are demonstrably false, if not insane. I have reason to believe that I'm not alone in my views.

Consider this: From inception to release, a Hollywood movie averages about two years. Some longer, some shorter, but about two years on average. If the CIA is using those to distract from specific events in the news, then they know two years in advance what the headlines will be. They either have a way of seeing into the future, or they create the reality from which they wish to distract. In either event, why would an organization with that kind of power even bother to try hiding their tracks? You're surely not contending that they have to justify their budget to Congress, or that the voters might actually have some influence over how things are run, are you?

In any event, arguments of plausibility aside, I have a proposition for you. If, as you contend, movies are being made to draw attention from news stories, then it ought to be possible to predict what will be in the news in the future by knowing what movies will be released on a given date.

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2012/ and http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2013/ have reasonably comprehensive lists with plot summaries. If you park your mouse over a line, you'll (usually) see more movies for that week.

So, how useful is your theory?

[barracuda]

First off, if this thread devolves into a Hugh hate-a-thon replete with cursing, insults and acrimony, I'm gonna lock it right away. We've had enough of that of late.

Secondly, I can see that you don't really understand Hugh's theory very well, according to which much of the propaganda of import occurs within the scope of the advertising for the film, which can be altered and adjusted right up to the last minute. Most of the keyword adjustments are innoculative, not predictive: they focus upon persons or events of historical interest to the agency, and swarm the search function retrospectively. Much of the propaganda is simply a steady stream of pro-war imagery, combat/soldier glorification, etc. And much of the keyword highjacking is simply throwaway insertions that might never be needed, but make it to the script or poster nonetheless. A plot synopsis cannot be predictive in the way you suggest. The devil is in the details.

Personally, I've gone through all the various stages of grief wrt Mister Wins, and have at this point in my tenure here alighted upon an interpretation which allows a reading of his work sans aggravation:

Hugh Manatee Wins (if there is but a single person behind that username) sees a shadow across the land. The center of that shadow, the object casting it, is fully dark, black and impenetrable, filled with opaque secrets and actions hidden from view, and no hard, direct evidence escapes from it. But the edges of the shadow, the penumbra, are just fuzzy and transluscent enough for him to discern with his lens the patterns of willfullness that guide them, and to ascribe to that willfullness a probable set of actors. And such is the urgency wrought by his discernment of those actors and their goals that he must have you believe it and see it as well at the risk of your very soul.

This is, to be honest, the most generous reading of his ideas I have to offer. There are certainly ways to look at what he does that are far less charitable. But to try and pin him down is missing the point of his exercises completely. If you go that route, you have already lost your way.

[slomo]

In any event, arguments of plausibility aside, I have a proposition for you. If, as you contend, movies are being made to draw attention from news stories, then it ought to be possible to predict what will be in the news in the future by knowing what movies will be released on a given date.

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2012/ and http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/-/2013/ have reasonably comprehensive lists with plot summaries. If you park your mouse over a line, you'll (usually) see more movies for that week.

So, how useful is your theory?

This is an experimental design that admits statistical analysis. I volunteer to conduct the analysis.

Rules of the game: everybody (Hugh and others) is invited to issue a prediction for any date in 2012 or 2013. The prediction must be given an exact date and tied to a specific movie in the resource Sepka has so generously provided for us (or any similar database that can be referenced online). One or two sentences that explain why the referenced movie(s) predicts the event would be extremely helpful in case the prediction is disputed. A prediction will be considered accurate (a "hit") if the event occurs within two weeks (either direction) of the predicted date. It will be considered inaccurate (a "miss") if no event that reasonably matches the prediction occurs in the designated 4-week window. Note that vague predictions, or those that are unsubstantiated by a specific cinematic project in an online resource, will be disputed and submitted to the RI community for discussion. Those predictions that are confirmed by the community to be vague or unsubstantiated will be omitted from data analysis.

A preliminary data analysis will be conducted by Slomo (or other competent RI statistician) in early January 2013. A final analysis will be conducted in early January 2014, with reporting of results in February 2014.

[Ben D]

Impressive cuda,...

[slomo]

First off, if this thread devolves into a Hugh hate-a-thon replete with cursing, insults and acrimony, I'm gonna lock it right away. We've had enough of that of late.

Secondly, I can see that you don't really understand Hugh's theory very well, according to which much of the propaganda of import occurs within the scope of the advertising for the film, which can be altered and adjusted right up to the last minute. Most of the keyword adjustments are innoculative, not predictive: they focus upon persons or events of historical interest to the agency, and swarm the search function retrospectively. Much of the propaganda is simply a steady stream of pro-war imagery, combat/soldier glorification, etc. And much of the keyword highjacking is simply throwaway insertions that might never be needed, but make it to the script or poster nonetheless. A plot synopsis cannot be predictive in the way you suggest. The devil is in the details.

Personally, I've gone through all the various stages of grief wrt Mister Wins, and have at this point in my tenure here alighted upon an interpretation which allows a reading of his work sans aggravation:

Hugh Manatee Wins (if there is but a single person behind that username) sees a shadow across the land. The center of that shadow, the object casting it, is fully dark, black and impenetrable, filled with opaque secrets and actions hidden from view, and no hard, direct evidence escapes from it. But the edges of the shadow, the penumbra, are just fuzzy and transluscent enough for him to discern with his lens the patterns of willfullness that guide them, and to ascribe to that willfullness a probable set of actors. And such is the urgency wrought by his discernment of those actors and their goals that he must have you believe it and see it as well at the risk of your very soul.

This is, to be honest, the most generous reading of his ideas I have to offer. There are certainly ways to look at what he does that are far less charitable. But to try and pin him down is missing the point of his exercises completely. If you go that route, you have already lost your way.

Your analysis of Hugh's theories may be correct, but I still think some of the fundamental ideas could be tested. It would be interesting, fun, and illuminating. Even if the test fails to confirm the specifics of Hugh's theories, it could still generate other hypotheses that are interesting in and of themselves.

I personally think that Hugh may (sometimes) be seeing real patterns that have an explanation that is totally different from the one he proposes. My personal belief is that the universe is self-aware and holographic, and that the patterns Hugh sees is reflective of a high-order intelligence beyond human agency. I don't think the experiment that Sepka has suggested and I have elaborated upon could distinguish between Hugh's hypothesis and my own, but if positive significant results are found, then we would have supporting evidence for some interesting, hitherto unknown process that Hugh has locked into.

I still have to think about the best statistical model for analyzing the data arising from this experiment, if it goes forward in anything like the manner that I have proposed.

[barracuda]

Just a reminder:

A public forum such as this is not an appropriate venue for ... offering diagnoses of ... psychological disturbance or any similar history or condition.

This includes freestyle armchair diagnoses of the mental health of water mammals.

[slomo]

Just a reminder:

A public forum such as this is not an appropriate venue for ... offering diagnoses of ... psychological disturbance or any similar history or condition.

This includes freestyle armchair diagnoses of the mental health of water mammals.

Just because a theory is insane does not mean its proponent is. In my day job I see plenty of insane science proposed by otherwise balanced and reasonable people.

[Nordic]

Hugh will ignore this thread. Watch.

[slomo]

Hugh will ignore this thread. Watch.

Probably. But it could be fun to go through with it anyway. Not to beat up on Hugh, but for its own merits in potentially validating RI models of reality (namely, that there is much more to reality than conventional wisdom and popular/mainstream culture would have us believe).

For me, a turning point in coming to full acceptance of some of the fringe stuff we talk about here is the fulfillment of my personal prediction, in 2006, of Obama's presidency. The prediction was based on parapolitical models of the type expounded upon here (whether the Hugh variety, the Wells variety, or others). Seeing Obama win in 2008 after all the lefties insisted that the country was too racist to elect a black president (probably true, if there were indeed free elections) and that he would be assassinated beforehand (only true if he was a threat to the true powers governing this republic) validated the following model: "Presidential elections in the U.S. are theater for the masses. U.S. presidents are not elected by popular vote or electoral college; instead, they are carefully selected to play some role or fulfill some mandate/agenda developed in secret by elite, moneyed interests, and in 2008 these moneyed interests saw great benefit in placating urban upper-middle-class liberals after the radical reactionary policies that resulted from 8 years of G. W. Bush, while continuing (if not accelerating) the momentum of gradually ushering in a totalitarian state."

Ideas like Sepka's are great inspiration for setting up a laboratory for deeper understanding of the models proposed in this forum. This is beyond Hugh.

[DrVolin]

I'll look at the link. I'd be impressed if we could nail down the date of operations against Iran iwthin a month based on movie release dates. I understand and grant all of Cuda's caveats.

[Elvis]

My personal belief is that the universe is self-aware and holographic, and that the patterns Hugh sees is reflective of a high-order intelligence beyond human agency.

Well said, Slomo, I agree, that could account for many of the "dots" Hugh connects. (Maybe sort of like the "pale horse"/lens flare trotting through the square in Cairo.)

* * * *

I have a related experiment: Hugh adamantly denies the existence of anything "woo" or truly paranormal, and many of his KWH "connections" are seen from this perspective. According to Hugh (tell me if I'm wrong) "Wonderment Occluding Objectivity" exploits people's interest in bogus supernatural events---and they are all bogus---to distract them from thinking about real crimes.

I, on the other hand, am convinced of the 'reality' of much "woo" (but not "W.O.O."), and suggest that, if anything, CIA/shadow-government controllers would, for many reasons, want to hide woo.

I think I could easily, using the same, er, logic, used by Hugh, find several examples of movies, TV shows, NPR segments, etc., that could be interpreted as deliberate efforts to divert thoughts away from, or heap ridicule upon, supernatural ideas that could be dangerous to TPTB.

I haven't really tried this yet (is it worth the time?), but I wouldn't be surprised if some such examples were actual KW manipulations by spooks. I'm inclined to believe that 'woo' has been classified, appropriated by spooks because it is both useful to them (when used against others) and dangerous to them (when used against them).

Like the man said, "What you don't know can't hurt them."

Edited for typo

[undead]

I think that the real Hugh Manatee Challenge is to ignore his constant bitching about something that is obvious to most of the people who read this site. Fortunately there is an ignore function, but this is thwarted by manatee related meta-threads that only serve to encourage his annoying behavior.

[elfismiles]

Many have tried and failed to engage the Manatee in a good-faith dialog to ascertain the validity (or lack thereof) of his KWH hypothesis.

All I've ever asked of him is to produce JUST ONE document showing someone was assigned the tasks required to execute his theory.

Yes, he can cite chapter and verse of psychological warfare manuals, he can propose very interesting and entertaining connections between parapolitically significant names/places/dates and past/present media product, but he can't prove a lick of it - as much as I might want him to be able to do so. Decades of deception have left reams of documentation of other worse deeds by TPTB but somehow the Illuminaughty paper-shreddders have worked overtime to destroy any bit of evidence for a single incident supporting his hypotheses.

But it is his complete unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of the validity of SOME "woo" in favor of his conviction that ALL "woo" is really "W.O.O." that drives home the fact that he is not a true fellow-RI-traveller but just as much a closed-minded debunker as those who scream that we are in a "War with Islam" - facts be damned.

Prove us wrong Hugh.

HMW's RI posts:
search.php?author_id=27&sr=posts

Keyword Hijack threads by topic:
search.php?keywords=keyword+hijack&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=topics

Previous RI HMW/KWH MegaThread:

Primary sources for the keyword hijacking theory.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29244

[slomo]

Many have tried and failed to engage the Manatee in a good-faith dialog to ascertain the validity (or lack thereof) of his KWH hypothesis.

All I've ever asked of him is to produce JUST ONE document showing someone was assigned the tasks required to execute his theory.

Yes, he can cite chapter and verse of psychological warfare manuals, he can propose very interesting and entertaining connections between parapolitically significant names/places/dates and past/present media product, but he can't prove a lick of it - as much as I might want him to be able to do so. Decades of deception have left reams of documentation of other worse deeds by TPTB but somehow the Illuminaughty paper-shreddders have worked overtime to destroy any bit of evidence for a single incident supporting his hypotheses.

But it is his complete unwillingness to even entertain the possibility of the validity of SOME "woo" in favor of his conviction that ALL "woo" is really "W.O.O." that drives home the fact that he is not a true fellow-RI-traveller but just as much a closed-minded debunker as those who scream that we are in a "War with Islam" - facts be damned.

Prove us wrong Hugh.

I am almost sure that Hugh will ignore this thread, as Nordic predicts. But I'm kind of interested in the project for its own merits independent of calling Hugh out. I don't really expect that we'll come up with anything of statistical significance in this particular run, but it is an exercise in turning our activities on this forum from retrospective analysis to prospective prediction. In my line of work, prospective validation is much more valuable than retrospective analysis.

[elfismiles]

I dig. And I appreciate the attempt.

Beyond the scope of those stated efforts, I have long thought that Hugh should take all his posts from RI and create his own Movie-Review blog and thus thwart the efforts of TPTB by having a one-stop-shop for his perspective.

At the very least this would add an online counter-balance to what he believes/says is going on.

Even if said blog's readers don't believe his assessment as explained, his very act of publicly tieing together what he perceives as KWH should theoretically counter his CIA opponents efforts. It's that simple. Why hasn't he done that instead of arguing his beliefs on "hostile" message boards he believes are beneath his intellectual disinfo identifying prowess?

His shtick is hilarious, and I'd like to think it is all an elaborate satire play to BOOST the internet search results for the very keywords he asserts are being manipulated towards distraction.

I am almost sure that Hugh will ignore this thread, as Nordic predicts. But I'm kind of interested in the project for its own merits independent of calling Hugh out. I don't really expect that we'll come up with anything of statistical significance in this particular run, but it is an exercise in turning our activities on this forum from retrospective analysis to prospective prediction. In my line of work, prospective validation is much more valuable than retrospective analysis.