Subliminal image in attack ad !!!!!!!!!

[Grig]

Somebody get it to Harper, he may be able to use it TONIGHT!

The Conservative war room already knows about it. I hope they put out a press release soon at the very least.

[gimbol]

The type of message that the ad was trying to communicate?

I was almost expecting to see some old footage of Nazi death camp photos. Maybe even a detonation of an atom bomb. It would fit right in with the scary theme.

How about the libs augment it with Maritn in a preachers robe behind a pulpit screaming that a vote for the Conseratives would open the doors to perdition. "War, pestilence, famine, death. AHHHH."

Somehow Martin fits in with that screaming preacher profile. Guess thats how Canadians can percieve him now.
As someone who will impose his beliefs on the rest of the country.
Sounds kind of scary doesn't it? Do you suppose the ad has backfired?

[Mark Fournier]

As Lowell Green said today, if one frame isn't subliminal, what is subliminal?

You can't get less than one frame and the vast majority of the population will not pick up one frame, and most of those who think they might have seen something can't say what it is. What is the point of adding a single frame that people won't 'see'? Why do it at all?

If one frame is not subliminal messaging, there is no such thing as subliminal messaging.

[gimbol]

What do you suppose the fallout would be if somebody actually got shot and the perp claimed this ad made them do it?

Perhaps this is ad is a form of hate literature?

C-250 anyone?

[Grig]

The CKNW news in Vancouver (CKNW is the #1 listened-to station on the coast and includes Bill Good's show) just covered it on their 6 AM news -- they got the name FreeDominion wrong -- they said FreeDOMAIN -- I've sent them an email.

How was the reaction?

[Strangis]

Subliminal messages are HIDDEN messages

Find one media report printed before I pointed this out that states the gun is fired. You won't find one, NOT ONE. In every case it only says the gun is pointed at the viewer. Go ahead. Prove me wrong, it it wasn't subliminal, everyone would have noticed right off the bat.

What's happening at the point the gun fires is called a "flash cut" by editors. By putting it at the end of the gun sequence, it also gives the impression that the gun was fired.

The president of the ad firm who produced the ad CONFIRMED that it is a muzzle flare and said the video is stock footage of a GUN BEING FIRED. No flash cuts are used anywhere in the ad.

Try recording muzzle flash on video or film. It lasts for 1 frame when recorded at normal speed.

Not so, when you watch some movie where guns are fired muzzle flashes are consiously noticiable and longer than one frame. The fact that they only show one frame of it, and don't follow it by a frame of the gun is a clear indication of deliberate subliminal intent.'

If, when the flash appears, there were subtle words that said "Harper eats puppies" or something else, then THAT would be subliminal.

That would be a subliminal MESSAGE, we are talking about a subliminal IMAGE. A picture has far more power to effect a person's emotional state than any text.

Whether the flash was recorded on film or added in post has no bearing on whether it's subliminal or not. If the ad agency said that it was there when they recieved the stock footage, I would guess that the flash was added in post, before they recieved it. After all, I wouldn't waste a perfectly good camera for a single gun shot unless I was filming in SUPER slo mo.

As for other movies with muzzle flash, they generally DO only last one frame. Any that last longer have probably been added in post. It's got basically the same duration as a flash from a still camera. Sometimes the flash doesn't get captured AT ALL depending on shutter speed. Another red herring.

And finally, yes we ARE talking about images. So what? The image is of a gun being raised to the camera, fired and it cuts to another scene. There is NOTHING misleading about that. Where's the hidden message?

This is my favourite line from you...
The fact that they only show one frame of it, and don't follow it by a frame of the gun is a clear indication of deliberate subliminal intent.'

Considering that the whole definition of subliminal is ADDING secondary text or imagry (or sound), how can REMOVING imagry be defined as subliminal? That's called editing, not subliminal advertising. Sheesh.

I know you spent a lot of time putting the page together, but you should have maybe added a definition of subliminal at the top. It could have saved you a lot of time.

Here's the Webster's definition...
subliminal \Sub*lim"i*nal\, a. [Pref. sub- + L. limen threshold.] (Philos.) Existing in the mind, but below the surface or threshold of consciousness; that is, existing as feeling rather than as clear ideas.

Considering that the flash is clearly percieved by one's consciousness, how can it be subliminal? Plain and simple. A gun raised to the camera and firing to reveal a gray factory scene is just that. It's easy to MISS a gun flash, because of it's short duration, but just because you missed it doesn't make it a secret message.

Sometimes a cigar is JUST a cigar.

[moondoggy]

Strangis, I have no idea how this affects your argument, but in one of the papers this morning, the ad exec said that in fact the stock piece that they used included the bullet leaving the gun if they had let it run... to the extent that they did cut it after one frame - clearly intended not to be overtly visible, it had the intended effect of invoking fear without explicitly showing the image that they were truly presenting. Yes, I am one who didn't see it until I knew it was there.

And if this is simply a matter of semantics, the ad is at best misleading and a misrepresentation - notwithstanding the usual policy misrepresentations.

For shame!

[Strangis]

As Lowell Green said today, if one frame isn't subliminal, what is subliminal?

You can't get less than one frame and the vast majority of the population will not pick up one frame, and most of those who think they might have seen something can't say what it is. What is the point of adding a single frame that people won't 'see'? Why do it at all?

If one frame is not subliminal messaging, there is no such thing as subliminal messaging.

That's entirely untrue. Subliminal messages are SECONDARY messages HIDDEN within an entirely DIFFERENT message. THAT'S why this isn't a subliminal message. Since the primary message is a gun taking aim at the viewer, the frame of muzzle flash (whether filmed or added in post), is totally expected, and a continuation of that message, not something hidden from the conscious part of the viewers mind.

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~pmerikle/p ... ption.html

[Roy Wilson]

Humor so don’t get excited

Next Liberal canvasser that comes to your door , point a gun and say its ok you wont see the flash either.

[braveheart]

As Lowell Green said today, if one frame isn't subliminal, what is subliminal?

You can't get less than one frame and the vast majority of the population will not pick up one frame, and most of those who think they might have seen something can't say what it is. What is the point of adding a single frame that people won't 'see'? Why do it at all?

If one frame is not subliminal messaging, there is no such thing as subliminal messaging.

That's entirely untrue. Subliminal messages are SECONDARY messages HIDDEN within an entirely DIFFERENT message. THAT'S why this isn't a subliminal message. Since the primary message is a gun taking aim at the viewer, the frame of muzzle flash (whether filmed or added in post), is totally expected, and a continuation of that message, not something hidden from the conscious part of the viewers mind.

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~pmerikle/p ... ption.html

Ok so we have some criteria here.

The pointing a gun at a person is the PRIMARY MESSAGE and firing the gun (actually shooting at a person) is the SECONDARY MESSAGE.

[Grig]

Whether the flash was recorded on film or added in post has no bearing on whether it's subliminal or not.

And no bearing on anything I said either.

If the ad agency said that it was there when they recieved the stock footage, I would guess that the flash was added in post, before they recieved it. After all, I wouldn't waste a perfectly good camera for a single gun shot unless I was filming in SUPER slo mo.

Like you said, it doesn't matter if it was post production work or not, the point was that the ad firm confirmed it is a muzzle flash. If the ad firm wanted to crop the flash out, they could have.

BTW, do you know what blanks are?

As for other movies with muzzle flash, they generally DO only last one frame. Any that last longer have probably been added in post. It's got basically the same duration as a flash from a still camera. Sometimes the flash doesn't get captured AT ALL depending on shutter speed. Another red herring.

The facts are clear that the ad was deliberatly constructed to hide the fact that the gun goes off.

This is my favourite line from you...
The fact that they only show one frame of it, and don't follow it by a frame of the gun is a clear indication of deliberate subliminal intent.'

Considering that the whole definition of subliminal is ADDING secondary text or imagry (or sound), how can REMOVING imagry be defined as subliminal? That's called editing, not subliminal advertising. Sheesh.

No, it's called context, and the overall context is designed to subconciously produce an emotion and mislead you as to the cause behind your reaction.

I know you spent a lot of time putting the page together, but you should have maybe added a definition of subliminal at the top. It could have saved you a lot of time.

Here's the Webster's definition...
subliminal \Sub*lim"i*nal\, a. [Pref. sub- + L. limen threshold.] (Philos.) Existing in the mind, but below the surface or threshold of consciousness; that is, existing as feeling rather than as clear ideas.

Considering that the flash is clearly percieved by one's consciousness,

Try looking up the definition of prevaricator sometime. I challenged you to show one account of someone mentioning the gun was fired printed before I exposed it and you can't. You are spin doctoring for the Liberals. Go work on your resume, you'll need a darn good one after the 28th. Bye[/quote]

[Strangis]

Strangis, I have no idea how this affects your argument, but in one of the papers this morning, the ad exec said that in fact the stock piece that they used included the bullet leaving the gun if they had let it run... to the extent that they did cut it after one frame - clearly intended not to be overtly visible, it had the intended effect of invoking fear without explicitly showing the image that they were truly presenting. Yes, I am one who didn't see it until I knew it was there.

And if this is simply a matter of semantics, the ad is at best misleading and a misrepresentation - notwithstanding the usual policy misrepresentations.

For shame!

Actually, there's no point in debating whether they filmed the bullet coming out or not. Does it matter if they filmed the bullet coming out, then the shooter holstering the gun then going for a snack? No. It holds no relevance to what's presented in the ad itself.

For example, in a movie, generally, you don't see the bullet leaving the chamber and following it's trajectory (well, post John Woo and Matrix, that's not ENTIRELY true now, but generally speaking). Generally you see the gun aimed, fired (flash) and the results. Which is EXACTLY what we see in the Lib ad. Vote for Harper and BLAM... welcome to Craptown. (remember this is NOT necessarily MY view).

I've never argued that the ad isn't misleading. Ads/websites/speeches from ALL the major parties contain misleading or inaccurate information.

That's not the issue I have with this thread and the discussion in general. The issue at hand is that someone thought this was a form of subliminal advertising, or brainwashing, which it clearly is not. The implication in the original post is that by simply viewing this ad, the subliminal message will seep into everyone's consciousness and we'd all become brainwashed zombies, which is patently untrue.

Thanks for responding without unwarranted accusations though.

[moondoggy]

ummmmmmmm what was the broadcast standards council definition of subliminal again?

[Grig]

Humor so don’t get excited

Next Liberal canvasser that comes to your door , point a gun and say its ok you wont see the flash either.

I can't belive you said that!

[Roy Wilson]

Humor so don’t get excited

Next Liberal canvasser that comes to your door , point a gun and say its ok you wont see the flash either.

I can't belive you said that!

When I get really peod I say what I am thinking! I did say it was humor.