![](http://www.picobay.com/uploaded_images/Land-O-Lakes_knees-771831.JPG")
Posted on 03/29/2009 6:20:17 PM PDT by motherof2
Does anyone know the current legality of subliminal messages? Have they reduced the amount of time a frame or series of frames need to play? It seems to me there has been an increase in either "mistakes" by the broadcaster ...where they start one video, and then cut it short and go to something else ...could be more errors,or perhaps they have shortened the legal length of time a frame(s) needs to show.
I think that urban myth was debunked 30 years ago.
Subliminal fk Obama messages are not real.
They are illegal on broadcast channels over public airwaves, but not controlled on cable or satellite transmissions. The technique was used by inserting a single frame.
The FTC has not banned the use of such ads. There are court rulings all over the place, generally not favorable to consumers. However science has generally failed to prove the ads effective. Most advertisers do not use them for fear of discovery, exposure and adverse consequences.
You are right about the FCC banning their use. http://tafkac.org/products/subliminal.advertising/subliminal_references.html
Blipverts!
Where are the pics of the “Cheney X”, et al?
I think, it's a mixed bag.
Quoting from EXPLORING PSYCHOLOGY 7TH ED BY DAVID G MYERS p141:
"Can we be affected by stimuli so weak as to be unnoticed? Under certain conditions, the answer is yes. An invisible image or word can briefly prime your response to a later question. In a typical experiment, the image or word is quickly flashed, then replaced by a masking stimulus that interrupts the brain's processing before conscious perception. For example, one experiment subliminally flashed either emotionally positive scenes (kittens, a romantic couple) or negative scenes (a werewolf, a dead body) an instant before participants viewed slides of people (Krosnick & others, 1992). Although consciously perceiving either scene as only a flash of light, the participants gave more positive ratings to people paired with positive images. People somehow looked nicer if their photo immediately followed unperceived kittens rather than an unperceived werewolf."
"This experiment illustrates an intriguing phenomenon: Sometimes we feel what we do not know and cannot describe. An imperceptibly brief stimulus often triggers a weak response that can be detected by brain scann ing (Blankenburg & others, 2003). That small brain response may evoke a feeling, though not a conscious awareness of the stimulus. The conclusion (turn up the volume here): Much of our information processing occurs automatically, out of sight, off the radar screen of our conscious mind."
"But does the fact of subliminal sensation verify entrepreneurial claims of subliminal persuasion? Can advertisers really manipulate us with "hidden persuasion"? The near-consensus [Qx emphasis] among researchers is no. Their verdict is similar to that of astronomers who say of astrologers, yes, they are right that stars and planets are out there, but no, the celestial bodies don't directly affect us. The laboratory research reveals a subtle, fleeting effect. Priming thirsty people with the subliminal word thirst might therefore, for a brief interval, make a thirst-quenching beverage ad more persuasive (Strahan & others, 2002). But the subliminal tape hucksters claim somthing different: a powerful, enduring effect on behavior."
When Anthony Greenwald and his colleagues (1991, 1992) tested that claim in 16 experiments evaluating subliminal self-help tapes, his results were uniform: None had any therapeutic effect beyond that of placebo (the effect of one's belief in them). His conclusion: "Subliminal procedures offer little or nothing of value to the marketing practitioner" (Pratkanis & Greenwald, 1998)."
I believe the text so far as it goes.
HOWEVER, I have a couple of caveats in mind . . .
1. Dr Milton Erickson of Phoenix was a master at curing hopeless cases a long string of other excellent therapists had failed with. A major aspect of Milton's methodology was subtle hypnotic cadence, words, tones, phrases etc. which the client would have no conscious awareness of in terms of as a feature of the treatment program. Yet, they had very enduring and powerful effects.
2. Bandler and Grinder studied Milton and some other best therapists and derived NEURO LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING. OThuga used those techniques to great destructive effect on our Republic in the last election. Most watching his NLP laden speeches had no idea he was manipulating them unconsciously. Yet, he did, very effectively.
3. Various well known 'agencies' imho, are undoubtedly using such methods wholesale on the populace as well as on hapless prisoners they want information from . . . as well as on others they have cocked and primed to do dirty deeds. So I believe the studies cited above . . . I don't believe that 100% of my profession is being 100% honest in all they are reporting on publicly. Or, perhaps some studies are just never reported on by the researchers.
However, let's just take the studies above . . . PRIMING THE PUMP to trigger an EMOTIONAL response at a key point in a key direction by masses of people . . . could easily have long lasting effects at the ballot box. It would likely take maybe dozens if not 100's of repetitions followed-up by very sophisticated brainwashing sequences . . . but I think we saw in the last election how it could be very powerful in terms of very long lasting impacts on a society.
My $2.00 worth. Perhaps Petronski will enjoy trashing the above maybe just out of reflex or on unprinciple or for some other mystifying "reason."
Not that the puppet masters/ globalist oligarchy
have demonstrated the least bit of concern about ‘legalities,’ however.
Has anyone seen the Monsters v. Aliens ad with the one-eyed blob creature between the legs of the giant insectivory thing? It ran in the Washington Express, a very smarmy, metrosexual tabloid published by the Washington Post. Not the sort of subliminal ads this is about, but very, very creepy, especially for a kiddie movie.
I was in broadcasting and advertising.
Please don’t make this personal.
Oh?
I thought that was SOP in psychological matters.
My error, perhaps.
Why you dis Petronski?
You find out, let me know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.