Cluesforum—Exposing Mass Deception

I resonate with your comment. Yeah, mine was a facetious blanket description for that kind of technophilia. It's getting to be technofascism almost, really.

Farcevalue wrote:Just saw Iron Man Three last night (it's a ritual get together action hero movie event thing, don't ask). Not a great movie, but some bold moves on the part of the perps were in this one. For the sake of refraining from spoilers for those that may have an interest, I won't be overly specific. Very little plot anyway, primarily two plus hours of special effects and psychic driving.

It won't be too much of a giveaway to mention a prominent revelation of the method theme, bombs in crowds and several interesting shots of amputees, as well as bomb shadows reminiscent of Hiroshima.

I couldn't escape the feeling that this was timed in conjunction with the Boston hoax, that it's all rolled out as part of a comprehensive media psyop package where the elements intertwine and commingle to reinforce the "news" story of the moment.

Well worth the look when it hits DVD, not as entertainment (although it's bearable), but as a study in the connections of the the various branches of the media.

Spoilers are always fine, IMO, as long as they're labeled as such for anyone who cares about such a thing.

*SPOILERS BELOW*

Unfortunately, I saw the movie twice: once with my wife, and once with a friend who didn't have anyone to go with.

I think you're right about its timing with the Boston hoax. That might help to explain that, though this movie is set during Christmas, it didn't open until May. One of the movie's themes is media fakery, but fakery done in a controlled way so that the media itself is duped rather than being complicit in it.

Simply put, the Mandarin is touted as the film's bad guy in the trailers and throughout the beginning of the movie. The Mandarin in IM3 is an out-and-out terrorist, rather than the Fu Manchu-type master criminal he is in the comics. Immediately after each of a series of supposed terrorist explosions occurs in the U.S., the Mandarin hacks into the major TV networks with a message.

There are two big reveals concerning the Mandarin:

First, the Mandarin is revealed to be fully funded by an American think-tank called Advanced Idea Mechanics, or AIM (which is also quite different than AIM from the comics). Rather than living in some Middle Eastern country as the film footage implies, he films all his terrorist messages on a private estate in Florida owned by AIM.

Second, the Mandarin is later revealed to be a complete fraud, as he is an alcoholic, drug-addicted English stage actor who was specifically hired to play the role of the Mandarin. The real villain is the head of AIM. And the supposed terrorist attacks are actually explosions resulting from a faulty bio-engineering virus called Extremis, which somehow regrows severed limbs and essentially grants super-powers such as excessive heat, rapid healing, strength, invulnerability, and (apparently) ninja fighting skills.

The fact that the movie completely avoids the idea that the terrorist attacks themselves could be faked is telling. The movie holds that these explosions are real, but are spun as terrorism.

The Mandarin being an actor plays into the controlled opposition idea that all the images are real (this is barely questioned), but actors are used -- which is what you see in all the alternative media (except Clues Forum) discussing the Boston hoax, where nobody wants to question whether the photos and video themselves are faked.

(I would have been impressed if they had made the Mandarin a completely fictional person, a la the president revealed to be a digital construct in Frank Miller's 2001/2002 comic-book mini-series The Dark Knight Strikes Again -- but this would have cut a bit too close to reality.)

The movie also makes the U.S. president out to be an innocent dupe of the AIM plot rather than an insider, though the vice-president is shown to be an AIM plant who will take office once the president is killed in another supposed terrorist attack by the Mandarin. At the end, of course, justice is done when all the bad guys are killed or arrested, including the vice-president himself.

I think this movie is basically throwing the viewer a bone while keeping the meat to itself. Of course, most of the people going to see this movie won't give it a moment's thought, nor look into the idea of media fakery. And if they do happen to look into the idea of "actors" being used in supposed terrorist attacks, they'll end up running across the likes of DallasGoldBug and other gatekeepers and join the ranks of the crazies with laughable theories or flee back to the safe world of unquestioningly accepting news stories as fact.

(Sorry if the above is a bit rambling and wordy. I originally had some concise ideas in mind but lost my train of thought.)

I saw the latest tentpole movie The Man of Steel last night. It was utter dreck. And if you're a fan of U.S. comic-books and DC in particular, you might find this Superman as unrecognizable as I did. This was the most dumbed-down version of Superman yet, IMO.

I spotted a lot of typical Hollywood themes we see in big, blockbuster movies. I'll try to recall as many of them as possible.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

- Superman kills the villain at the end as a kind of "justifiable homicide," but shows very little remorse beyond a Klingon-like death cry. There are no long-term repercussions, and Superman seems fine with it a very short while later. Despite the fact that Superman's battle with the Kryptonian criminals led by Zod destroyed both his hometown of Smallville and his newly adopted city of Metropolis, undoubtedly along with several thousand people (whose offscreen deaths must surely have occurred with all those buildings completely destroyed), there are absolutely no repercussions. It was completely disgusting, but completely in line with the Bush and Obama administrations' use of assassination; that shouldn't be surprising, given that Zack Snyder was the director (he also did the anti-Persian/anti-Arab propaganda film 300), and Christopher Nolan was the producer (his Dark Knight films justified widespread wiretapping and CIA tactics such as kidnapping and torture).

- The destruction of midtown Metropolis (which was never named as such in the movie, but it has a Daily Planet and a LexCorp), with Kryptonians and objects crashing through frail buildings, is an obvious reference to 9/11. There's even a scene where Daily Planet editor Perry White (played by Morpheus: Laurence Fishburne) and a few of his colleagues are covered in talc, much like the people we saw in some of the 9/11 videos.

- Superman was basically made out to be an alien Jesus, an extraterrestrial savior, which plays well into the extraterrestrial propaganda that's everywhere nowadays. There was even a backstory that implied that ancient Kryptonians were responsible for bringing civilization to Earth, which should please the Ancient Aliens crowd.

- There was plenty of NASA propaganda, including the destruction of what looked like the International Space Station.

- For those of you interested in more esoteric symbolism, it was also really obvious to me that Superman's origin story was changed enough to be an allegorical account of the mystery religion of Osiris, Isis, and Horus, complete with a small "obelisk" serving as the symbolic phallus of Osiris that brings him back temporarily, in a way, as a hologram.

There's more to say about this movie, of course, but I don't have time right now.

More and more they seem to be introducing the meme of massive civilian casualties in these movies, none of which ever prevent a "happy ending" in these films. The Avengers, Transformers and all the rest...The humans are trivialized and dehumanized constantly prepping us for who knows? At the same time a military presence is reinforced as humanitarian no matter how far afield of the truth it may be. The state will not be satisfied with a boot in the face of humanity, they will insist that we willingly thank them for our freedom when they do so.

Hey guys,

unsure if this is the correct thread, but over the past year or so I've become more cynical when it comes to the "deaths" of Hollywood talents. I put deaths in quotes as I'm at odds as to whether they actually die or not - or are taken out.

A couple of examples: Director Tony Scott. James Gandolfini and now - Glee actor Cory Monteith (died July 13th, 2013)



SKY NEWS:
http://news.sky.com/story/1115515/cory- ... d-in-hotel

"The 31-year-old's body was discovered at Vancouver's Fairmont Pacific Rim hotel just after noon on Saturday after he failed to check out."

The new blockbuster movie 'Pacific Rim' - about humankind in big Iron Man style suits battling monstrous, alien sea-creatures - directed by Guillermo del Toro (Pans Labyrinth, Hellboy, Blade 2, Devil's Backbone, Mimic) - isn't doing too well, in it's first opening weekend.

Low-budget, surprise made-for-TV fodder 'Sharknado' - yes, sharks caught up in a tornado is being talked-up in a big way and the last Tweet actor Cory Monteith releases is: 'oh IT'S A SHARK TORNADO.

https://twitter.com/CoryMonteith - Cory Monteith Twitter -

On 8th July 2013, he Tweets a screen-grab from his iPhone of what he's listening to with 'basically on repeat'.

'Friendly Fires' - 'Paris' (Aeroplane Remix) - with that nice triangular structure of the Louvre.

https://twitter.com/CoryMonteith/status ... 24/photo/1



Is this any relation to the Paris train crash?

Perhaps, it is nothing at all, though something seems a little off.

Pug

FWIW:

I can't find Natalie Wood in the SSDI. I tried both her professional and born names.

And, as I noted somewhere earlier, the same goes for Marilyn Monroe.

Both alleged deaths were treated as controversial by the media with implications of murder, coverup, etc.

In case you haven't heard, a Reader Digest survey found Tom "Apollo 13" Hanks as America's most trusted person. Other notable top tens include Sandra Bullock ("Gravity") and the ever barf-able Bill & Melinda Gates and, of course, Spielberg.

Oh well, nobody said this was going to be easy.

I had a friend who was a believer in macro-evolution. One day it came up in conversation and I took the opportunity to explain why I didn't think it was something that any one had to believe in. She was shocked, I think she even had to sit down, because she had never heard any arguments or evidence against the concept. She began to defend the theory on the basis of her trust in Dr. Grant. It took me a moment to realize she was referring to Jurassic Park.

My wife and I watched Promised Land a couple of weeks ago. Long-winded synopsis here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2091473/
For what it's worth, it stars Matt Damon, Frances McDormand, John Krasinski and Hal Holbrook, written by Krasinski, directed by Gus Van Sant.
Not the worst movie you could watch, but the big plot twist nearly made me fall out of my chair:
An anti-fracking environmentalist (Krasinski) launches a grassroots campaign to sabotage a big oil/natural gas company's attempts to pay-off locals to frack their land. He shows photos of dead cows on his farm in Nebraska due to the results of fracking and the whole town turns against the big oil company's frontmen, Damon and McDormand.

TOTAL SPOILER: Damon is anonymously given a package with enlarged photos of the alleged dead cows, and in the background circled in red marker pen (ala the Batman/Sandy Hook screenshots) is a lighthouse, proving that the photo can't have been taken in Nebraska which, I am told, has no oceans in need of a lighthouse. Very Clues-Forum-esque. It also turns out that the grassroots campaign was a total fraud, setup by the oil/gas company without Damon's knowledge to discredit any environmental campaign against fracking.

Hollywood telling the truth? Controlled opposition, phoney grassroots organisations, photo fraud! Quite similar to what I have just read in Vext Lynchpin and Farcevalue's post on Iron Man 3. For a moment I couldn't believe how honest they were being, Then I realised that:
1. It would go right over most peoples' heads (My wife thought it was just a clever twist, bless her heart)
2. The whole idea of controlled opposition is now "just something that you see in a movie"
3. As Vext said, anybody with any interest will most likely get sucked into one of the shit-box controlled opposition websites.

arc300 wrote:My wife and I watched Promised Land a couple of weeks ago. Long-winded synopsis here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2091473/
For what it's worth, it stars Matt Damon, Frances McDormand, John Krasinski and Hal Holbrook, written by Krasinski, directed by Gus Van Sant.
Not the worst movie you could watch, but the big plot twist nearly made me fall out of my chair:
An anti-fracking environmentalist (Krasinski) launches a grassroots campaign to sabotage a big oil/natural gas company's attempts to pay-off locals to frack their land. He shows photos of dead cows on his farm in Nebraska due to the results of fracking and the whole town turns against the big oil company's frontmen, Damon and McDormand.

TOTAL SPOILER: Damon is anonymously given a package with enlarged photos of the alleged dead cows, and in the background circled in red marker pen (ala the Batman/Sandy Hook screenshots) is a lighthouse, proving that the photo can't have been taken in Nebraska which, I am told, has no oceans in need of a lighthouse. Very Clues-Forum-esque. It also turns out that the grassroots campaign was a total fraud, setup by the oil/gas company without Damon's knowledge to discredit any environmental campaign against fracking.

Hollywood telling the truth? Controlled opposition, phoney grassroots organisations, photo fraud! Quite similar to what I have just read in Vext Lynchpin and Farcevalue's post on Iron Man 3. For a moment I couldn't believe how honest they were being, Then I realised that:
1. It would go right over most peoples' heads (My wife thought it was just a clever twist, bless her heart)
2. The whole idea of controlled opposition is now "just something that you see in a movie"
3. As Vext said, anybody with any interest will most likely get sucked into one of the shit-box controlled opposition websites.

"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves " - Lenin

It has always been the case for TPTB to control both sides of every conflict . Why wait for a genuine dissent to emerge when you can manufacture it yourself ?

I am always happy to see this kind of message coming from Hollywood because it might wake up at least few people to how things are handled in our world .

Maybe the purpose of exposing Lenin-like manipulation is discouraging people from critical thinking ? It's ALL bullshit after all

Spreading confusion is a very powerful mind-fuck modus operandi

bostonterrierowner wrote: Spreading confusion is a very powerful mind-fuck modus operandi

Damn right. And when their modus operandi has me confused, I sigh and say to myself:

bostonterrierowner wrote:It's ALL bullshit after all

And I feel better.

bostonterrierowner wrote: It's ALL bullshit after all

But it's a double-edged sword, I suppose; on one side you have a grounded peacefulness with critical facilities intact and an ability to ride the bullshit, and on the other you have defeatist hopelessness and the only way for some to get out of that funk is to turn their bullshit detectors off. 99% of the people I know and love are in this category. But I gotta say, I'm more of a pain in the arse to them than they are to me.

It could be that the deception in such obvious exposures is the pace of releasing such information.

You can release bits of the truth as long as most of the information swirling around it is bullshit and nonsense. People will simply believe the dominant information rather than test it all for themselves.

Hence, people will make up all sorts of excuses we can imagine for why a given human behavior is not significant, even when shown to be possible and demonstrable in the plausibility of a story. It is drowned by implausible behavior that makes us feel good about ourselves.

For instance, one consistent fairy tale we see over and over in stories is the liar revealing their lie.

If that simple observation of people were switched from such an overt unrealistic mania (the villain craves to reveal his truth) to the real truth of human behavior (that a liar will simply constantly deny their lie until the moment they are faced with a true threat, and even then they might take it further than one would expect, perhaps even further than they would expect, out of little else but simple craven fear) we would see a very different sort of entertainment. Entertainment based on a true success of our base, competitive animal life, which is to identify, confront or even oust people not worthy of our community's trust. Of course idealism is important, but it seems most of us have promoted and enjoyed promoting the idea that we live in a utopia if we continue to trust that mosquitoes will not suck our blood if we concentrate hard enough.

In Hollywood and "children's entertainment", if the liar never revealed the truth, there would not quite be satisfaction in blowing up the villain to smithereens. It would continue to be the awkward question mark (or "dramatic tension") that more closely resembles real life.

There is a fantasy inherent in our cultural stories where one actually succeeds in confronting a liar. A liar will, in reality, just forever deny their lie and get no comeuppance.

The fairy tale we see consistently repeated, as if by some obsessive drive to change reality, is that pure goodness and truth will transform a liar's innate character into that of a trustworthy person. Is it not like wishing a lemon tree to grow oranges? I guess we have yet to find out.

I guess what Hoi wrote, in the previous post, could in many ways, reflect that of the religious myth. Namely the fairy tale of Jesus and the Bible code . A code indoctrinated into conscious thought of many from early age, and constantly reinforced, throughout the human life span, via Hollywood and the like(see list below).

Life of Christ

English

The Birth, Life and Death of Christ (Alice Guy, 1906, France, 33 min.)
Color of the Cross (2006) (USA)
The First Christmas (Liken Bible Series) (2006) (USA)
From the Manger to the Cross (1912) (USA)
Godspell (1973) (USA)
Gospel of John (2003) (Canada/UK)
The Gospel of Mark (2006)
Gospel Road: A Story of Jesus (1973) (USA)
The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965) (USA)
Intolerance (1916) (USA)
Jesus (1979) (USA)
Jesus (1999, TV) (USA)
Jesus of Nazareth (1977 miniseries) (Italy) (UK)
The Judas Project (1990) (USA)
The King of Kings (1927) (USA)
King of Kings (1961) (USA)
The Last Temptation of Christ (film) (1988) (USA)
Mary, Mother of Jesus (1999, TV) (USA)
The Miracle Maker (2000) (UK)
The Nativity (1978, TV)
The Nativity Story (2006) (USA)
The New Media Bible: The Gospel According to St. Luke (1979) (USA)
The Passion of the Christ (2004) (USA)(Aramaic audio)
Passion Play (1903) (USA)
The Passover Plot (1976) (USA)
The Road to Emmaus (2009) (USA)
The Son of Man (2005) (South Africa)
Wednesday Play: Son of Man (1969) (UK)
The Visual Bible: Matthew (1997) (South Africa)


more films@
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fi ... _the_Bible

kickstones wrote:I guess what Hoi wrote, in the previous post, could in many ways, reflect that of the religious myth. Namely the fairy tale of Jesus and the Bible code . A code indoctrinated into conscious thought of many from early age, and constantly reinforced, throughout the human life span, via Hollywood and the like(see list below).

snip...

While I agree that "bible code" is flat-out preposterous, arbitrarily concocted and even serves as disinformation, I do have to take issue with the first part of the emboldened statement. Are you insinuating that Jesus did not exist as a historical individual?

Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth is good. And Jesus is a real person.