rigorousintuition.ca

Hugh, you have convinced me of the reality of keyword hijacking. I've taken the ball and run with it:

Don Knotts

Dreams End wrote:Hey Hugh, here's a keyword hijacking I was wondering about. It's a movie called JFK. Evidently it's about...well, it's not important what it's about, but it's called JFK. Clearly this is designed to divert us from thinking about JFK.

By the way, JFK utilizes information that came from Fletcher Prouty. So here we have a massive budget Hollywood production calling attention TO the JFK assassination using information from someone you find reliable. Why, after all the carefully laid "limpet mines" and other subtle PAINE games, would they allow this?

Seems counterproductive to me.

The JFK story does not go away, does it? It rises and falls like a tide as events trigger waves of critical awareness slowly eliminating the sand castle cover story.

When it inevitably flares up, as it did when Oliver Stone poked the wound with material provided by 'Fletch' Prouty after the Clinton administration mandated release of documents, the counter-memes are reinforced of paranoid 'conspiracy theorists' and any perp but CIA being responsible.

A strong principle of psychological warfare is that hostile information is suppressed but not so hard that it both draws more attention to the info and validates its threat to power.
This is how the JFK and 9/11 topics are handled, with character assassination and developing a strong counterpropaganda program of disinfoteers.

Oliver Stone's movie was trashed for months before it was even completed nevermind seen. And his name was made synonymous with 'paranoid opportunistic kook.'
Exactly the same thing was done to suppress 'Shaggy D.A.' Jim Garrison when he went after Clay Shaw. Every CIA media asset was used and that infamous memo went out on how to suggest any JFK investigator is a kook in love with his theories and who could hide such a thing etc. Vincent Bugliosi is doing the same thing now.

After the shoot down of TWA800 was being vigorously suppressed and non-cooperative journos like Kristina Borjesson (editor of 'Into the Buzzsaw') were getting fired from CBS for telling the truth, the discredited Oliver Stone was briefly used as a discrediting tool.

Stone was briefly given the idea that he could do a sort of '60 Minutes'-style conspiracy show which was meant to reinforce the image of 'The Shaggy Director.' (You know, the path that Giraldo went down. And look at his reputation.)

Out of work and desperate Kristina Borjesson was offered a chance to work with Stone on a show about TWA800 much to her disbelief but she went for it. After much publicity about Stone's association with the topic it was canned.

Read pages 311-316 of Borjesson's account in 'Into the Buzzsaw' of how she was lured to the studios to make the proposal to Stone who wasn't interested in TWA800 himself and had documents stolen from her car.
Then CIA's Time Magazine and Newsweek did hit pieces on the idea of that kook Oliver Stone doing the story instead of the oh-so-trustworthy ABC News.

Discrediting accomplished.

And Stone realized he was now a weapon due to the stereotype his name had been turned into for doing 'JFK.' Disinfoteer Chip Berlet works the anti-conspiricist meme by attributing it to dangerous right-wingers who hate everybody and their government.
Same tactic. Conspiracy theory = dangerous kook.

And that's why Stone's own 9/11 movie steered clear of the Inside Job, because he realizes he will do more harm to the truth movement then good, a realization that Jane Fonda grappled with for years until her recent re-emergence against the Iraq War. She has said so in recent interviews.

But like Emilio Estevez putting only three seconds of The Polka Dot Dress in his 'Bobby' as a hint he knew the real story, Oliver Stone put just a quick mention of bombs in the WTC and molten metal to give a clue to his followers that He Knew but was not going to harm the truth movement with his weaponized reputation the way he had been used for this purpose with TWA800.

Does this answer your question, DE?

What's the matter, Pan? Panic attack?

You LIE again in your bogus nonsense thread. That's your pattern.
Pan is hijacking my expose and reversing the meme. What does that indicate, class?

I tied Don Knotts to covering up a 1962 CIA terrorism disaster in the Gulf of Tonkin
yet you wrote:

So you'll have to pardon me if I don't buy into the "coincidence theory" of Don Knotts and his pivotal role in the murder of JFK, RFK, and the ensuing coverup/hijackings.

WRONG TOPICS.
AND I'M NOT A "COINCIDENCE THEORIST." ...YOU ARE.

Pan is hijacking my expose and reversing the meme. What does that indicate, class?

That he has a sense of humour and does not appear to be a paranoid schizophrenic?

Pan is hijacking my expose and reversing the meme. What does that indicate, class?

I don't know, "teach" -- why don't you tell us.

Isn't this a discussion forum? Why don't you get your own blog or something?

"Hey ho, the gang's all here."

Gee, no comments on Operation Vulcan's limpet mine disaster in 1962?

I'm not surprised.

Why would we bother to comment on that when you'll just change up your focus when we do?

Also, please do tell us (now that we're all here) what Pan's "reversal of the meme" indicates.

You'd think people would thank you for the lesson in hidden history, and the hidden hand that hides it wouldn't you?

Thanks Hugh.

I would say some posters don't merit a response.*

I wonder what the general readers think about who provides the more valuable and interesting contributions to this board, Hugh, with his original work, explanation of context, and fascinating references, or the folks who post single line sarcastic putdowns to everything he ever posts. You know, for every person who posts, there must be at least twenty lurkers. I do hope they enjoy Hugh's writing. Maybe I should go check the view count on this thread.

But you know, I'm dying to know what Professorpan, Philipacentaur and Orz think of Hugh's work on propaganda mechanisms in mainstream movies arent you? Come on boys, don't be so coy. You must have an opinion surely. Especially Professorpan. I mean with all those lengthy detailed posts Pan provides on so many other topics of interest, you would think he could find time to express his opinion on Hugh's work just once, wouldn't you?

Sometimes I feel like I'm the first acolyte in the Church of Hugh! I'm laughing here for real you know, before all you smart alecs chime in with, "yes I thought that," and "there's no merit in being a True Believer," and "youre just as paranoid as him," and so on.

Lighten up chumps.

Me, I like a good laugh. But some people just aren't funny. Sometimes insulting "jokes" repeated ad nauseam are simply attempts at bullying.

*I reserve the right to ignore my own advice

Hugh, JFK earned over 200 million at the box office in its initial run. I don't even know how much it earned in dvd and cable.

What I am suggesting is that, despite the trashing in the press (which is what, as always, GENERATES box office) many, many people saw the film and many more heard discussion.

And to counter that you have "LIMPETs" and "PAINES"...? And not even disinfo, just the name in another context?

"Hey ho, the gang's all here."

The only 'gang' is anyone who acutally reads your posts and thinks about what you've written; which is to say, disagrees with you.

You'd think people would thank you for the lesson in hidden history, and the hidden hand that hides it wouldn't you?

No. Why would anyone thanks someone for telling them incorrect things? A lesson is only valuable if the information is correct, if it's wrong/lies/insane then the teacher should definitely not be thanked.

I would say some posters don't merit a response.*

I on the other hand will reply to any old nonsense, as you can see.

Sometimes insulting "jokes" repeated ad nauseam are simply attempts at bullying.

Sometimes borderline paranoid-schizophrenic diatribes intercut with pages of pasted text repeated ad nauseum are simply irritating, harmful and counterproductive.

HoL, you must have missed at least 80% of the content of the skeptical responses to Hugh's "KW hijacking" obsession.

The skeptical contingent around here have already posted that we are in general agreement with many of the general historical points that HMW brings up, even as we roll our eyes at his continual attempts to link trivial cultural artifacts- such as movie minutiae- to a pervasive psychological operations campaign directed by the CIA.

If you had read our comments, presumably you wouldn't be making remarks dismissing those who dispute HMW on this matter as "folks who post single line sarcastic putdowns to everything he ever posts."

As for HMW's recurrent resort to data dumps- with an increasingly high quotient of repeats, as time goes by- I supoose that it looks impressive, if it's the first time that one has encountered the material. Much of it is, in fact, quite thought-provoking- although I would counsel readers to think for themselves in the course of interpreting the data, rather than simply accepting the interpretations of another uncritically.

However, HMW is seemingly unable to provide a response to repeated requests for specific step-by-step logistical details on how the phenomenon he alleges could be accomplished, in the parade of egregious examples he's given. Instead, he blathers off into generalities, and waves old WW2-era psyops directives around. That evasion may not be a conscious tactic, but nonetheless, it is not responsive to the queries.

The fact is, at this point, personally, I've worn myself out trying to play it straight. It only indulges him. The points of reasoned debate slipped into redundancy long ago.

It seems to me that the only thing left by way of response is satirical demonstrations of the absurdity of his fixation. The more ridiculous the better- bearing in mind that it's unlikely that any of us could ever top the unintentional self-parody of HMW's scenery-chewing fulminations.

Bring on the comedy.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the first acolyte in the Church of Hugh!

I've always kept a respectable distance from both churches and their acolytes.

http://festival.sundance.org/2009/film_ ... ms/big_fan