This document only has a couple blurbs regarding JFK (his nickname was "Ruby", his actual last name was "Rubenstein"). The page numbers also skip pretty bad; however the redactions and references as to how regime changes in South American countries by a Certain Instigation Agency are all over the place.
Just to be clear from the beginning, I'm not trying to start a fight or anything of that nature. I'm just curious why people do this type of thing;
Certain Instigation Agency
Why do people try to disguise who they're talking about like this? Are they trying to avoid triggering some sort of alert that would put their comments up for scrutiny by intelligence agencies?
I'm not trying to embarrass or single you out. Just finally decided to ask why people do this.
I'm sure we're all on multiple databases, with ratings ranging from "standard braindead zombie-no concerns" to "Just short of Cooper or Gunderson action required". When the wall fell in Germany, people were looking into what notes the communist intelligence services had on them and I'm sure it was an eye opener.
I'm sure all our e-mails, online keyboard comments and forwarded documents are stored/rated as part of our "Issue to Deal With" score. At a base level, I'm sure there's algorithms scouring for keywords to start that process, then I'd imagine it moves up to "analyst level" items, and I'm sure that now there's been AI involved for a while.
I've lost family members that in hindsight were probably secretly "dealt with". I have no intention of making there job any easier at this point. Hope that helps.
That intelligence agencies haven't figured out they disguise references like that, or they're not able to include disguised references in programs scouring posts for any mention of intelligence agencies?
Speaking from my personal viewpoint, no I don't think it really matters or works. Maybe at one point years back it served purpose and actually disguised the agency in question, but by now they've surely expanded their boolean vocabulary to include all these popular "workarounds."
I think some of the reasons people like to do it (at least the folks here)has to do with the Q posts too. They frequently used:
🤡 In America or Clowns In America
to reference the agency in question.
I think others began to do it partially as a show of homage to the Q posts or just imitate the style (the greatest form of flattery, as they say).
It's also a way to show a little invention and creativity in your writing and posts, I think. It's good for a laugh when you read
Fully Braindead Idiots
and then maybe get inspired come up with one of your own, which gets a laugh in turn and maybe a few people copycat that and one guy comes up with his own
[F]aggots [B]uttfucking [I]ncessantly
and on it goes.
And I'm just now thinking of this, but it probably does get hella annoying for them to have to continually add all these different acronyms and such to their search terms to stay on the cutting edge and figure out what we're saying about them.
But does it prevent anything or "throw them off the trail" in some way? Err, probably not anymore...
This document only has a couple blurbs regarding JFK (his nickname was "Ruby", his actual last name was "Rubenstein"). The page numbers also skip pretty bad; however the redactions and references as to how regime changes in South American countries by a Certain Instigation Agency are all over the place.
Just to be clear from the beginning, I'm not trying to start a fight or anything of that nature. I'm just curious why people do this type of thing;
Why do people try to disguise who they're talking about like this? Are they trying to avoid triggering some sort of alert that would put their comments up for scrutiny by intelligence agencies?
I'm not trying to embarrass or single you out. Just finally decided to ask why people do this.
I'm sure we're all on multiple databases, with ratings ranging from "standard braindead zombie-no concerns" to "Just short of Cooper or Gunderson action required". When the wall fell in Germany, people were looking into what notes the communist intelligence services had on them and I'm sure it was an eye opener. I'm sure all our e-mails, online keyboard comments and forwarded documents are stored/rated as part of our "Issue to Deal With" score. At a base level, I'm sure there's algorithms scouring for keywords to start that process, then I'd imagine it moves up to "analyst level" items, and I'm sure that now there's been AI involved for a while. I've lost family members that in hindsight were probably secretly "dealt with". I have no intention of making there job any easier at this point. Hope that helps.
Yes, that is why.
Do they think that actually works, though?
That intelligence agencies haven't figured out they disguise references like that, or they're not able to include disguised references in programs scouring posts for any mention of intelligence agencies?
Speaking from my personal viewpoint, no I don't think it really matters or works. Maybe at one point years back it served purpose and actually disguised the agency in question, but by now they've surely expanded their boolean vocabulary to include all these popular "workarounds."
I think some of the reasons people like to do it (at least the folks here)has to do with the Q posts too. They frequently used: 🤡 In America or Clowns In America
to reference the agency in question.
I think others began to do it partially as a show of homage to the Q posts or just imitate the style (the greatest form of flattery, as they say).
It's also a way to show a little invention and creativity in your writing and posts, I think. It's good for a laugh when you read
and then maybe get inspired come up with one of your own, which gets a laugh in turn and maybe a few people copycat that and one guy comes up with his own
and on it goes.
And I'm just now thinking of this, but it probably does get hella annoying for them to have to continually add all these different acronyms and such to their search terms to stay on the cutting edge and figure out what we're saying about them.
But does it prevent anything or "throw them off the trail" in some way? Err, probably not anymore...
Just my thoughts.