Effort to bump 'Operation Mockingbird' from searches?

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:49 pm

RobertReed...He Mocks Work...lol. I point at- <blockquote>Quote:<hr> historical precedent and means/motive/opportunity patterns<hr></blockquote> That is finding signal in the noise. So we agree. Really, I appreciate your thoughtful analysis on the beaurocratic dynamics of the intelligence community over in the Bob Woodward thread. You're right. It ain't all black and white. Much like Jeff, I have the attitude that it is worthwhile to lead readers towards ways of thinking about things and not just "proving" things. Repeatedly readers post that they look at media differently since they've read my posts. Not that they draw my conclusions but they look at dots more closely to see IF they connect. And that's my goal here at RI even as I enjoy learning from others like yourself, RR, offering more tools for critical thinking. The interplay of motives and ass-covering between Nixon, CIA, Pentagon, ONI Woodward and WPost Bernstein are worth wading into just to get a program for The Covert Opera written by the National inSecurity state for the last 60 years. The "Bay of Pigs thing," as Nixon called it, connects Watergate back to the Kennedy assassination and a whole lot of media chaff around that which connects to Oliver Stone talking about 9/11 today. Those dots do all connect. I like to introduce educational examples of the world we live in to RI readers who don't have your background of examining that world so they have a template for looking for themselves at the dynamics of media curtain ripples caused by scuffles between White House, Pentagon, CIA, CFR, free-lancers, etc.

by **robertdreed** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:04 pm

The most popular interpretation of the "Bay Of Pigs thing" allusion by Nixon in the infamous Tapes is that RMN was making a veiled reference to the Kennedy assassination. I first read that interpretation from Robert Anton Wilson in the late 1970s or early 80s, although I'm not sure that it's original with him. I think it's at least as likely that Nixon was referring to something that was going on in connection with the Cuban Exile Bay of Pigs veterans at the time that he was speaking- the involvement by some of the leaders in massive heroin trafficking, overlapping with the fox-in-the-chicken coop situation of other Cuban exiles being recruited into the DEACON-ONE covert intelligence program nested within the Drug Enforcement Administration- an agency newly created by Nixon as part of his inauguration of a newly globalized "War On Drugs." There was a huge bust of Cuban exile heroin traffickers during Nixon's term, "Operation Eagle", an operation whose initiation pre-dated the formation of the DEA- and the case was thrown out because the judge found that Nixon's Attorney General, John Mitchell, had completely ignored the procedures required in order to put wiretaps on the subjects. Prosecutorial misconduct, at the highest level...intentional? Did Mitchell tank Operation Eagle from the start? Press scrutiny of the case was quickly lost, in the co-incidental furor over Watergate... By the way, if you really want to encounter a missing Internet search term about a secret government covert op, try looking up DEACON-ONE, or any variant, like DEACON-1. But DEACON-ONE most assuredly existed/exists- you can find some telling details in Jim Hougan's Secret Agenda, in a few articles in old issues of the largely non-achived High Times magazine, and in Sally Denton's The Bluegrass Conspiracy. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/30/06 12:52 pm

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:11 pm

RR, I only just noticed your additional questions edited into your post. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Would someone kindly do me a favor, and unpack the logical leaps drawn between considering the attempts by some school districts over the years to ban the book entitled To Kill A Mockingbird from the reading lists of high school English classes, and some conjectured wider effort to excise any access to learning about Operation Mockingbird by the American public? Oh yeah, clogging search engines on the Internet...maybe Harper Lee was part of the plot, for giving her book that title in the first place.<hr></blockquote> I'm pointing at opportunistic use of 'what is out there' by media mind managers to lead attention away from knowledge of dirty laundry and control devices. Of course the school districts and Harper Lee are not 'CIA perps.' Good grief. Hey, I know someone at Harper Collins Media responsible for getting Harper Lee to consent to releasing 'To Kill a Mockingbird' as an audio product. When I was told of this career-enhancing accomplishment, I wailed "Noooooo!" Because I knew that the revival of the keyword 'Mockingbird' could be opportunistically used to tag on OTHER 'Mockingbird' itnernet events to dilute the keywords 'Operation Mockingbird.' Did I think that my close friend was doing this intentionally for the CIA? Of course not. But that is how they take advantage of other people's behaviors in plausibly deniable ways. Make sense, RR?

by **robertdreed** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:27 pm

First of all, I don't come from the era where the Internet is considered the Alpha and Omega of pursuing historical research. I much prefer a well-stocked university library with a Library Of Congress catalog system and database. Secondly, it's inevitable that some searches are tougher than others. I don't view this as invariably due to Enemy Action. Thirdly, while I've come across gaps in Internet knowledge that I find suspicious- such as the absence of references to DEACON-ONE, noted above- I don't view it as being due to the wholesale enlistment of popular mass-media outlets for purposes of throwing up a smokescreen. Fourthly, that story about banned book lists has been recurrent in the American news media on and off for around 30 years now, long before it had any utility to befog keyword searches. And by next week it will be old news. Maybe its supposed pre-eminence in search engines will be displaced by a science story on bird songs, but I'll still doubt the existence of an intentional plot. Fifth, no one who's serious about pursuing research into Operation Mockingbird has any business thinking they deserve results simply by typing the keyword "mockingbird" into a search engine. It's the difference between <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=T9i&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=mockingbird&btnG=Search">www.google.com/search?hs=...tnG=Search</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hs=aVO&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&q=%22operation+mockingbird%22&btnG=Search">www.google.com/search?hs=...tnG=Search</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 9/30/06 1:34 pm

by **orz** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:09 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is something the CIA obviously doesn't want us all to know.<hr></blockquote> But they don't mind SOME of us knowing? Come on... anyone who's searching for stuff about Operation Mockingbird on google ALREADY KNOWS ABOUT IT and will easily find more info even if a couple of unrelated items come up in the list. I mean, whenever i search for anything on google at least a handful of links are to spam pages or unrelated junk with the same name... but strangely I don't insist that there's an elaborate conspiricy to make me take a few more seconds to scroll down the page and find another result! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> Once more you've done your usual trick: made a truely outlandish implication, then 'backed it up' with interesting and valid but pretty much unrelated quotes and links. So let's go back to the original post: Just so i'm sure i understand you: Are you really claiming that someone (a specific real person working for Yahoo) was ordered to write this whole article soley in the hope of bumping down operation mockingbird in the search engines? Also, do you dispute that To Kill a Mockingbird was banned in school libraries and thus legitamately belongs on a list of books that have been banned in the US? PLEASE THINK! I can't understand how you don't see that you're totally putting the cart before the horse? If you take any event that you believe They are trying to distract the people from, you can simply find the relevent keywords in ANY text and claim it's part of a plot to distract people... can't you see how ludicrous that is? You're obsessed with operation Mockingbird, fair enough, but what i've got a bee in my bonnet about Operation Giant Peach, Operation Pigman or Operation The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? I could come on here and copy and paste the exact same article, excitedly bold hilighting the relevent words! And guess what? I'd be a total nut! And Finally (as they say on tv news): THAT YAHOO ARTICLE DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE GOOGLE SEARCH FOR 'OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD'! IT NEVER WILL, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD 'OPERATION.' Searching for operation mockingbird on google without even putting it in quotes results in about 425,000 hits. EVERY RESULT on at least the first 8 pages is info about Operation Mockingbird I skipped forward several pages, and was hard pressed to find one single link that was NOT directly relevent to Operation Mockingbird. Even on the final (64th) page, some of the results are about Operation Mockingbird. YOUR THEORY IS WRONG. Clearly noone is trying to 'keyword hijack' operation mockingbird. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=orz@rigorousintuition>orz</A> at: 9/30/06 3:24 pm

by **DireStrike** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 1:21 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But they don't mind SOME of us knowing?<hr></blockquote> That's the way I understand it. It's like reverse marketing. In marketing you flood the info channels with your data and maybe get a few takers. In this keyword hijacking you obscure the data by talking up peripherally-related things. The purpose would be a form of meme innoculation for casual searchers. It would act supressively to slow down the spread of good data. Obviously people seriously looking into it can't be deterred by this tactic. Unless they're impatient.

by **orz** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:00 pm

indeed, legitimate concept in itself, but as i've shown above, there is NO indication that the particular example Hugh shows us in this thread has ANY effect in this regard. When a theory has evidence for neither the claimed cause OR the claimed effect, what use is it?

by **wordspeak** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 2:53 pm

Indeed, an "Operation Mockingbird" google search comes up with information from Wikipedia and conspiracy/truth web sites about Operation Mockingbird, where the word appear together. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Operation+Mockingbird&btnG=Google+Search">www.google.com/search?hl=...gle+Search</a> I don't quite see it on this one, but search engine manipulation certainly happens. I remember a google search on "9/11" a year or two ago came up with a whole first page of fluff sites, then the very top site on the second page was Paul Thompson's Cooperative Research timeline. And the CIA sure does want to-kill-a-mockingbird! Their mass infiltration of the media is one of the most important memes for consciousness-raising.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>When a theory has evidence for neither the claimed cause OR the claimed effect, what use is it?<hr></blockquote> Boy, are you missing the obvious. You really miss the forest for the trees here. 1) The reason there IS an Operation Mockingbird is to direct the public's attention to state-sanctioned messages. 2) I started the thread to direct attention instead to Operation Mockingbird itself and the tactic of keyword hijacking as in Operation Condor/ Three Days of the Condor Project Paperclip/ The Paperclip Project I mentioned those other infowar topics to both justify my concerne about not letting 'them' bury Operation Mockingbird and eventually realize how entertainment media is used to hide covert operations . Not sure why you didn't notice that. Why? Because as wordspeak just posted, this topic IS probably the most important consciousness-raising one and thus liable to be targeted with media tricks and I want people to be prepared when it happens. Hope this puts us back on the same page, orz. Sorry you took this so myopically since my intent was the opposite.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:25 pm

Illegal javascript event tags or url parameters detected.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:29 pm

Wow. Looks like Ezboard which is also Googleanalytics.com really does not allow me to post the info from the technorati.com website which allows you to track any search term's incidence on blogs. You know what results I just tried to post and got that "illegal" message, don't you? Hmm. Next...

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:30 pm

<a href="http://technorati.com/search/%22operation%20mockingbird%22">technorati.com/search/%22...ingbird%22</a> 246 results on blogs. There's a bar chart showing number of mentions per day for any time period, too.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:32 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Posts that contain "operation mockingbird" per day for the last 30 days.<hr></blockquote> <img src="http://technorati.com/chartimg/%28%22operation%20mockingbird%22%29" style="border:0;"/>

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 4:33 pm

C'mon, people. Let's kick those numbers up. Look at mentions of OpMock for the last year. Pretend you're the Rendon Group analysing this What do you suppose precipitated these spikes? <img src="http://technorati.com/chartimg/%28%22operation%20mockingbird%22%29" style="border:0;"/> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 10/1/06 2:36 pm

by **orz** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:37 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I started the thread to direct attention instead to Operation Mockingbird itself and the tactic of keyword hijacking as in<hr></blockquote> To recap: The title of this thread: Effort to bump 'Operation Mockingbird' from searches?  The correct answer to this question: No. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Because as wordspeak just posted, this topic IS probably the most important consciousness-raising one and thus liable to be targeted with media tricks and I want people to be prepared when it happens. <hr></blockquote> Stop crying wolf with this stupid unfounded 'keyword hijacking' twaddle then.

Effort to bump 'Operation Mockingbird' from searches?

Re: HMW...

The Bay Of Pigs Thing

Re: Robert Reed misunderstands where I point.

Re: Robert Reed misunderstands where I point.

once again

Re: once again

sure

wikipedia, then michael rivero, then alex jones

Re: orz comment

Re: wikipedia, then michael rivero, then alex jones

Re: Illegal javascript event tags or url parameters detect

Re: Illegal javascript event tags or url parameters detect

Re: Illegal javascript event tags or url parameters detect

Re: Illegal javascript event tags or url parameters detect

...

Who is online