Hollywood Scripting

[Bruce Dazzling]

A quick review of the last several pages of this thread demonstrates that Hugh is in violation of the following board rule:

...

Since Hugh is a repeat offender, I'm exiling him for two weeks.

Most of the posters in this thread are just as guilty as he is. It takes two to rango, you know.

And where does two weeks come from? Is it completely arbitrary? eyeno, before banishment, was suspended for three days for making a bizarre and at least borderline anti-semitic post. Nordic was suspended for one week for 'insulting' Hugh Mantee Wins (but I'm not sure Nordic intended to insult). Now Hugh Manatee Wins is suspended for two weeks for, I suppose, initiating something we all participated in. I intentionally broke the 'no insults' rule when I called Hugh a crank and I have disrupted this thread almost as much as him but nothing has happened to me.

By the way, you really should have posted this in a seperate thread.

I explained my actions in the post that you (incompletely) quoted, but I'll restate it here and elaborate a bit.

1. Jeff created a rule for the specific purpose of limiting Hugh to one KWH post per thread, unless it happens to be his own. The rule states that habitual non-observance of these guidelines will be regarded as disruption.

2. Hugh broke that rule in this thread, to the extent that his disruption became the actual topic of the thread on multiple occasions, to the consternation of the OP, as well as several other board members who expressed their frustration publicly and privately.

3. Hugh is a multiple repeat offender, and has been warned/suspended multiple times.

4. I'm sorry that you consider my actions to be arbitrary, but moderating this board is more of an art than a science. We don't have a Discipline Matrix where offense a = punishment a. We use our judgement, and I can assure you that I have the board's best interests at heart.

5. I'm really not sure why you expected me to start a separate thread for my announcement that Hugh had been suspended. It seems to me that the best place for such an announcement is right in the thread where the rules in question were broken. It was a short post, and really didn't disrupt the thread at all.

With that in mind, please respond to this post via PM if you feel you have something more to say.

Carry on.

[lupercal]

is Rango a KWH based coverup of the Rongelap tests, we have had no direct documentation either in support or against the hypothesis.

There's plenty of documentation that bikini-Bikini is a KWH because they admitted it 1946, and many times subsequently. Here's Réard's September 18, 1984 NYT obit for example:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/09/18/obitu ... -1946.html

You can believe Rango-Rongelap is a coincidence but such coincidences are rare in mil-intel matters and the Marshall Islands tests are unquestionably mil-intel matters. As for Hugh's exile, that's unfortunate, since the thread was started in response to his claims, so it's not surprising that a) he contributed or that b) his analysis became a discussion topic:

1. Jeff created a rule for the specific purpose of limiting Hugh to one KWH post per thread, unless it happens to be his own. The rule states that habitual non-observance of these guidelines will be regarded as disruption.

2. Hugh broke that rule in this thread, to the extent that his disruption became the actual topic of the thread on multiple occasions, to the consternation of the OP, as well as several other board members who expressed their frustration publicly and privately.

My polite suggestion would be to amend the rule to include threads about Hugh as well as threads by him. In any case I'll be happy to observe the moratorium and wait until he gets back to continue the KWH discussion. In the meantime may I mention to anyone who would like to discuss KWH or anything else that they're always welcome to on my freeboard. The address is in my sig.

[barracuda]

There's plenty of documentation that bikini-Bikini is a KWH because they admitted it 1946, and many times subsequently. Here's Réard's September 18, 1984 NYT obit for example:

Malarkey.

[JackRiddler]

As for Hugh's exile, that's unfortunate, since the thread was started in response to his claims

It was started to finally discuss Hollywood and psyops - a subject of interest to many here, and one that he does not own and did not invent - without having it constantly revolve around his claims.

[Elvis]

There's plenty of documentation that bikini-Bikini is a KWH because they admitted it 1946

No, they said they used a name in the news at the time; they did not "admit" to using the word for KWH purposes, i.e., to covertly sway people to think of scantily clad-women, or whatever, when A-bombs are mentioned.

Réard's September 18, 1984 NYT obit for example:

'He named the swimsuit a bikini, thinking of the nuclear explosions at Bikini atoll around that time,'' his wife, Michelle, said in an interview.

If that's what you call "documentation" of KWH, I suggest a little more rigor and discernment. I doubt even the Master would cough that up as "proof."

More to the OP point, have you ever written a screenplay? If so, you might have found yourself casting about for character names or plot ideas...even looking in the newspaper <---clue for names.

[barracuda]

you might have found yourself casting about for character names or plot ideas...even looking in the newspaper <---clue for names.

Yep. Réard's very first bikini was actually made of fabric printed with images of newspaper <---clue headlines.

[barracuda]

Rep. King: CIA, Pentagon, too close to filmmakers

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman charged Wednesday that the CIA and Defense Department jeopardized national security by cooperating too closely with filmmakers producing a movie on the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King. R-N.Y., first raised questions about the bin Laden movie last summer, but said newly released documents confirm his suspicions.

The filmmakers are director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal, who won Academy Awards for the motion picture "The Hurt Locker."

King referred to documents obtained by Judicial Watch in a Freedom of Information Act request. He said the filmmakers received "extremely close, unprecedented, and potentially dangerous collaboration" from the Obama administration.

Judicial Watch said the documents show that the Defense Department granted Bigelow and Boal access to a "planner, operator and commander of SEAL Team 6" — the unit that killed bin Laden in Pakistan.

Other documents, Judicial Watch said, show that the filmmakers met with White House officials on at least two occasions about the film. A CIA email indicates that Bigelow and Boal were granted access to "the vault," which is described as the CIA building where some of the tactical planning for the raid took place, Judicial Watch said.

Pentagon press secretary George Little disputed some of the allegations, He said that while a planner was suggested as a possible point of contact for information on the Osama bin Laden raid, a meeting between that planner and the filmmakers never occurred.

He said the Defense Department engages on a regular basis with the entertainment industry on movie projects, and the goal is to "make them as realistic as possible. We believe this is an important service that we provide."

Little added that Pentagon officials did meet with producers of the film but said, "We have never reviewed a script of the movie."

Little also denied that the cooperation was an attempt to boost President Barack Obama's election chances, and said the movie would not be out until after the election.

There was no immediate comment from the CIA or the White House.

[peartreed]

Thanks for posting that article, Barracuda. Sometimes the writer liaison with Langley or the Pentagon is a lot less direct.

Much of the premise and program content of "The X-Files" episodic tv series was based on ufology “research” and cases previously contaminated by disinformation seeded into the UFO media circus and lecture circuit by intel agents.

I mentioned earlier that, in the nineties, the UFO forum on CompuServe, the rival “Encounters” forum, as well as on AOL, were monitored and messed with by Pentagon personnel who would focus on particular topics, such as MJ12 and the then-unraveling Majestic story.

The agents posing as members would constantly probe the credulity of these cases. In follow-up phone calls they could barely contain sadistic glee and giggles about UFO convention lecturers and online converts to their diversions and disinfo crusades.

I know because, as SYSOP, I read the exchanges, took the calls, and later talked to admitted agents involved. They came from the Directorate of Science & Technology.

The MJ12 tale of intrigue featured the history of a 1947 scientific panel allegedly created by Harry Truman as “Operation Majestic Twelve” under Vannevar Bush and James Forrestal supposedly assigned to investigate (and cover up) the Roswell UFO retrieval case. The papers were copies of a purported MJ12 operations manual.

The same MJ12 papers, purportedly given to UFO investigator Jaime Shandera and William Moore (later confessed CIA operative) also figured prominently in USAF Sgt. Richard Doty’s disinfo operation against physicist Dr. Paul Bennewitz investigating UFO and alien reports at Kirtland AFB. The papers and a rumored film of a UFO landing were also offered to other ufologists like Linda Moulton Howe, Timothy Good and Stanton Friedman by agent Doty.

(See earlier thread mention of tv “UFO Coverup Live” story).

Anyway, in those days, several prominent UFO authors and lecturers visited the online UFO Forum, including Whitley Strieber (author of “Majestic”) who had his own “Section” and Milton William Cooper, author of “Behold A Pale Horse”, who was later (2001) killed by police outside his militia compound in Arizona.

Cooper was always trying to destroy other UFO luminaries, such as Strieber and Travis Walton, in the very competitive and caustic campaigns for leading credibility, celebrity and book sales. He used his wife’s account to try to cover his identity.

Elements of all these corrupted cases, and others, were mined by the writers of “The X-Files” and “The Lone Gunmen” in order to give the background and dialogue of their stories more actual case study verisimilitude. Such coverage spread the crap.
The composition of the alleged MJ12 panel inspired the creators of the shows to employ a hidden and mysterious cartel of government insiders as the alien liaison.

Separating the wheat from the chaff continues to require a huge grain of salt.

[peartreed]

The above relatively alliterative-free recap was written (rapidly and redolent with sleep deprivation) reflectively to report that the residue of intel agent involvement in ufology still gets regurgitated by writer research, revisiting and recounting.

So such scripts also serve up assimilated surreptitious CIA spin on any spun subject.

The distribution of disinformation is deviously designed for indirect dissemination and endemic to the data rediscovered.

Probably all productions depicting espionage are implanted with promotional poison to present US spy subterfuge and counterespionage as a purely patriotic processes, unless of course it’s adversary intel action exposed as implicitly evil.

Protagonists cast in the role of government agents get to be good guys, and the antagonists in cahoots with the “aliens” or adversaries are, at best, intelligence turncoats with a secret agenda.

Ironically, the darker and more dangerous the underworld deception, the deeper the cover.

The worst intel antagonists are depicted in spy dramas as especially experienced, completely corrupted and deeply embedded.

It’s almost as if the alphabet agencies are eerily and openly admitting their ultimate, core ill-intent while interfering with imparting their own image in the arts.

Subconscious CIA mea culpa?

[lupercal]

Yep. Réard's very first bikini was actually made of fabric printed with images of newspaper <---clue headlines.

Yes, I'd say that's a clue, of the revelation-of-the-method type, as in "here's what we're doing if you're clever enough to catch on." And look, the headlines are in French and English:

Mais oui, ces Américains, zey are so smart!

[Wombaticus Rex]

Yes, I'd say that's a clue, of the revelation-of-the-method type, as in "here's what we're doing if you're clever enough to catch on."

FWIW: "Revelation of the Method," although a sonorously beautiful phrase in its own right, is not a real concept but the creation of Michael Hoffman III, who has devoted his life to pursuits that would get him kicked off RI.

Still, there is a certain poetry to invoking a fictional concept in support of an equally fabricated theory, so all is right with the Universe, I guess....

[lupercal]

^ A concept is simply an idea, or conception, and in that sense all concepts are “real” and all are “fictional,” i.e. imaginary constructs, whether or not they’re adjudged to have adequate objective correlatives, to borrow another poetic concept. And using scraps of newspaper to reveal-while-concealing the genitalia of a jolie jeune fille in a massively successful propaganda distraction has to be as revelatory of the method as it gets, whether you call it keyword hijack or something else.

Incidentally here’s how Hoffman elaborates the term in a 2006 essay entitled “Revelation of the Method and the Murder of Spirit: A Page from the Cryptocracy's Psychological Warfare Manual,” found here:

It is risky to reveal to the people what has been done to them by the gangster class that lords it over them. Patently, in the wake of the revelation, the risk is one of reprisal, retribution and rage by the people. But where there is little or none of that, then the Cryptocracy has tripled its hold on the minds and hearts of Americans: it has strongly hinted about the mass murder it committed on Sept. 11 and yet, there are few significant repercussions. This non-reaction tends to demonstrate that the people of the US accept, at the subliminal level of their consciousness, that their own leaders are mass murderers of their fellow citizens, and mostly what they do in return is shake it off and head to the mall.

That sounds like a reasonable hypothesis, and since the term has sufficiently penetrated the general consciousness to allow you to pen a valentine to it here without actually quoting from, citing, or linking to Hoffman’s essay, I think it’s safe to say it can be alluded to without suggesting the alluder is a Holocaust denier, which I’m guessing you are not.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Had the weirdest deja vu just now...cheers to spiral conversations, it's good to be back!

Like I said, Hoffman promises he can get anyone seeing his Twilight Language for the rest of their lives, and I don't doubt him.

[JackRiddler]

Yes, I'd say that's a clue, of the revelation-of-the-method type, as in "here's what we're doing if you're clever enough to catch on."

FWIW: "Revelation of the Method," although a sonorously beautiful phrase in its own right, is not a real concept but the creation of Michael Hoffman III, who has devoted his life to pursuits that would get him kicked off RI.

Still, there is a certain poetry to invoking a fictional concept in support of an equally fabricated theory, so all is right with the Universe, I guess....

Let's just take it as a term for something occasionally done by "them." Those among the powerful who seek to covertly engineer events may sometimes place a signature on their work, as a message to their friends or to others whom they may wish to impress or intimidate. But they do it with deniability, even if it's obvious. (An example might be for elements of the military-intel state who already control a head of state's security to stage his shock execution during a public procession, when so many varieties of poison are available.) Thus the claim will always lead to frustrating back and forth with those who don't even allow themselves to conceive of a non-conformist speculation if it hasn't already been proven by courtroom standards and received the Skeptics' seal of approval.

But the concept itself isn't objectionable. Its author need not concern us because it's doubtful he was the first to think of it, even if he put this particular phrase to it. It's one of those phrases that makes people feel really, really smart and perceptive where it may not be warranted. (To weaponize a metaphor, give it a catchy name.) They start applying it where the evidence doesn't support it, or think all they have to do is invoke it and they've proven something, or throw tantrums when contradicted about its use. We see the same thing with ideas like KWH, or "limited hangout," or the three-step formula that one can sometimes see put to use as a tool of disaster politics, but is not actually a "Hegelian dialectic."

That being said, here are two to me obvious cases of "revelation of the method," or whatever you want to call it, and interestingly both came from the same office:

Infinite Justice
Operation Iraqi Liberation

.

[barracuda]

And using scraps of newspaper to reveal-while-concealing the genitalia of a jolie jeune fille in a massively successful propaganda distraction has to be as revelatory of the method as it gets, whether you call it keyword hijack or something else.

Réard's revelation of the belly-button has nothing to do with what you're on about. If you walk around with those kinds of ideas in your head, you'll never see the deeper truth to his genius. You might as well wear your pants for a hat.