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

[Strangis]

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.

Actually not exactly. A gun being pointed at someone, then being fired is the same message, that message being "I'm shooting you." Nothing more.

Secondary message would be inserting flashframes that said something entirely out of context, to evoke an emotional response in the viewer. Similarly, the WHOLE ad is aimed a painting a bleak future if the viewer votes for the Conservative party. Therefore, any individual image that overtly promotes that goal is by definition not subliminal.

[rewjr]

Fiberal desperation has air of defeat !!

The tide is turning and the sky will be a glorious blue .


Vote RED and your brain dead !![/b]

[Strangis]

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

Wrong. Just because you missed the flash, doesn't mean it isn't a cigar.

o, 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 would say that the ad is designed CONSCIOUSLY, not subconsciously, to produce the emotion of fear. It is deliberate in it's purpose.

Try looking up the definition of prevaricator sometime.

From Webster's
prevaricator

\Pre*var"i*ca`tor\, n. [L. praevaricator: cf. F. pr['e]varicateur.] 1. One who prevaricates.

2. (Roman Law) A sham dealer; one who colludes with a defendant in a sham prosecution.

How does that apply, or would you suggest that your "analysis" of the ad was a "sham prosecution"?

I challenged you to show one account of someone mentioning the gun was fired printed before I exposed it and you can't.

And I clearly said "Why does this matter?" (edited: I SHOULD have said that - I missed it in my initial reply). You've accused one of the parties of engaging in dubious subliminal advertising, citing your case with a webpage that shows NO understanding of what subliminal advertising is. The gun is clearly raised to the camera and fired. You missed the flash, big deal. End of story. How is the single concept, of a gun being shot at the viewer, considered subliminal? In fact, I'd call it a very OVERT message, not subtle in ANY way.

You are spin doctoring for the Liberals. Go work on your resume, you'll need a darn good one after the 28th. Bye

Sure... maybe I can interest you in a customized tinfoil helmet?

[moondoggy]

I would say that the ad is designed CONSCIOUSLY, not subconsciously, to produce the emotion of fear. It is deliberate in it's purpose.


Strangis - the entire point is that the insertion of the single frame was indeed conscious. It was intended. That being said, the human eye can only process information so quickly - and fills in the rest. Them new-fangled moving pictures work on the basis that no single frame is visible, but that the blur of multiple frames in rapid succession gives the illusion of smooth motion. By inserting only a single frame, out of context, cannot be for any other conscious purpose than to insert the impression without the eye knowing what it actually saw. That is also how the infamous naked ladies were intended to sell booze in Subliminla Seduction. And as such "subliminal" trickery can only affect emotion - we cannot see it to have it form a specific memory, it must, by definition, be intended to provoke fear at an emotional level without the benefit of rational checks and balances in the viewers conscious mind.

[gimbol]

Using a simplicity like a fine edged sword:

Would you be offended if someone pointed a gun at you?

Would you be offended if you saw a gun pointed at your family?

What if the gun went off?

So you can discuss "subliminal" content till the cows come home, the point that gets people disgusted with this ad (and disgusted is as far as it goes, nobody is going to be afraid except the dork who thought this brain fart up) is the fact a gun is being point at them.

Some can call it an attack ad. I call it extortion for your vote.
Pond scum has more class.

[Roy Wilson]

Using a simplicity like a fine edged sword:

Would you be offended if someone pointed a gun at you?

Would you be offended if you saw a gun pointed at your family?

What if the gun went off?

So you can discuss "subliminal" content till the cows come home, the point that gets people disgusted with this ad (and disgusted is as far as it goes, nobody is going to be afraid except the dork who thought this brain fart up) is the fact a gun is being point at them.

Some can call it an attack ad. I call it extortion for your vote.
Pond scum has more class.

Pond scum? Well we are talking about Lieberals now aren’t we? Don’t expect better ever.

[Strangis]

the entire point is that the insertion of the single frame was indeed conscious. It was intended. That being said, the human eye can only process information so quickly - and fills in the rest. Them new-fangled moving pictures work on the basis that no single frame is visible, but that the blur of multiple frames in rapid succession gives the illusion of smooth motion. By inserting only a single frame, out of context, cannot be for any other conscious purpose than to insert the impression without the eye knowing what it actually saw. That is also how the infamous naked ladies were intended to sell booze in Subliminla Seduction. And as such "subliminal" trickery can only affect emotion - we cannot see it to have it form a specific memory, it must, by definition, be intended to provoke fear at an emotional level without the benefit of rational checks and balances in the viewers conscious mind.

Of COURSE the inclusion of the frame was conscious. I'm not arguing that.

You state above that...By inserting only a single frame, out of context, cannot be for any other conscious purpose than to insert the impression without the eye knowing what it actually saw.

The thing is, a frame of muzzle flash, when directly following a gun being aimed at the viewer, isn't out of context at all. It is an expected result.
That just ONE of the reasons I'm presenting the case that the gun firing is not subliminal in any way. It's an overt act. As I've stated before, there is no hidden message. A gun is being aimed and fired at the viewer, which is a deliberately open, agressive act, intended to induce fear.

As for the effects of subliminal messages (which this isn't), any studies I've read on them show that it has no effect.

See the snopes article, which disspells many Urban Legends and Myths...
http://www.snopes.com/business/hidden/popcorn.asp

[Strangis]

Using a simplicity like a fine edged sword:

Would you be offended if someone pointed a gun at you?

Would you be offended if you saw a gun pointed at your family?

What if the gun went off?

So you can discuss "subliminal" content till the cows come home, the point that gets people disgusted with this ad (and disgusted is as far as it goes, nobody is going to be afraid except the dork who thought this brain fart up) is the fact a gun is being point at them.

Some can call it an attack ad. I call it extortion for your vote.
Pond scum has more class..

Although I agree with you for the most part, the point about "subliminal" is that it is the case Grig is trying to make in the original post. That is patently untrue. Notice how any media stories about it have quickly disappeared? That's because it's a non-issue.

IF the analysis was about the VIOLENCE inherent in the ad, it might be a different story. I just found it surprising that nobody in the first 16 pages bothered to question whether the original analysis was even accurate before bothering to send it to media outlets.

After all, one wouldn't want to give the mainstream media the idea that political ideology is clouding rational judgement, correct?

[Mark Fournier]

Subliminal messages are SECONDARY messages HIDDEN within an entirely DIFFERENT message. THAT'S why this isn't a subliminal message.

Again, I disgree, and must refer to a previous post on this thread concering the movie The Exorcist. In that movie they used three one frame subliminal messages which were grotesque death heads. I recall being very uncomfortable at the time, although I already knew I was at a horror show.

About the third time I saw it, a lady took me out to see it because she had heard it was really frightening and didn't want to go alone. The first subliminal message showed up about 30 minutes into the flick and she jumped out of her seat and told me we were getting out of there. Nothing I could say could convince her to stay, so we left.

Years later I learned about the death head single frames they had inserted, I had never noticed them myself, so I rented a VCR copy and single frame scanned it. Sure enough, right when that lady had to run out of the theater there was one of those single frames.

By the time I had gotten around to doing this, I had a twelve year old son who thought horror movies were very cool. I warned him in advance about this and told him I was going to single frame scan until I found it. He thought it was very cool, he was forewarned, and he was ready. When I hit the right frame, I heard him gasp in fear.

Why add that frame to that movie? Why add that frame to the Liberal attack ad? No one can see it, but it has a very real effect on the viewer and the viewer is totally unaware as to how he has been manipulated.

The Liberals have sunk so low that they must now resort to this type of manipulation of the electorate to try to keep their noses in the trough.

[Darren]

Although I agree with you for the most part, the point about "subliminal" is that it is the case Grig is trying to make in the original post. That is patently untrue. Notice how any media stories about it have quickly disappeared? That's because it's a non-issue.

It's only a non-issue to the Liberal media because it's a Liberal ad. Had this been a Conservative ad, the Liberal lackeys in the media would be talking about nothing else. And if you ask me, one frame at 30 frames per second is subliminal advertising. There's no way you can conciously perceive that.

Cheers,
Darren in Newmarket

[Mark Fournier]

Claiming subliminal messages must be secondary messages is nonsense. Subliminal messages can say, "Buy Pepsi" or they can amplify a theme as they did in The Exorcist. Both have essential commonalities; they are not perceived on the conscious level, they have a profound effect on the subconscious level, and they have been added to produce an effect.

Again, if the point of adding this single frame to the Liberal's attack ad was not to manipulate, what was the point of adding it? Why do it?

[seniora]

We cannot allow the Liberals and the Liberal media to take the wind out of our sails by Clintonizing this whole thing and trying to turn it up-side in their favour.

It is only the Liberals who would get away with such an ad .

It is SO SO REPULSIVE!!!

You cannot imagine, as a woman, watching television and all of a sudden having a gun pointed at you , over and over ,and now realizing that it actually fires. I've never experienced anything before like it.

It has a Repulsive effect because ,I know it is not a movie I'm watching; the gun is intimidating me, in reality, to vote Liberal!!!!

SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME ON THE LIBERALS!!

[khori_wan_kenobi]

JUN 15, 2004 THE OTTAWA CITIZEN

Ad firm fires back over charges

Agency denies ad contains subliminal message

Glen Mcgregor
The Ottawa Citizen
Libs Go Ballistic: The Toronto ad firm that created a Liberal television
commercial denied yesterday that footage of a gun firing is a subliminal
message. A Zapruder-like analysis of the video shows that the menacing gun pointing at the camera actually fires. One frame -- one-30th of a second --shows a bright muzzle flash before the ad cuts to a shot of factorysmokestacks. The image is used to illustrate the Liberal charge that the Tories would go soft on guns by eliminating the federal gun registry. Media reports on the ads last week made no mention of the gun discharging, saying only that it was pointed toward the viewer.

"There's absolutely nothing subliminal about it," said Jack Bensimon,
president of Bensimon-Byrne. "It's entirely literal. If we had let it go a
few more frames, you would have seen the bullet."

The ad firm dubbed the spot "Multi-scene manifesto," he said. Like all
images in the commercial, the image of the gun was purchased from a stock footage supplier.

Is that Canadian stock footage? Mr. Bensimon declined to say.

Ethics guidelines prohibit the use of subliminal messaging, but the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council says it has never had a case involving a Canadian media organization.

The definition of subliminal is subjective enough that it is unlikely to
apply to the Liberal ad, anyway.

"Normally a subliminal message is, in its most manipulative sense, the kind of thing where you're in front of the TV and an ad for popcorn comes on and somebody pops in a frame that says, 'Go and drink Pepsi,' " said Ron Cohen, the council's national chairman. "I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that this is a subliminal ad."

Mr. Cohen said his organization had received some calls about the ad, but it was too soon to tell if they were legitimate complaints that warrant
investigation or merely listeners responding to some of the chatter about
the commercial on AM radio.

The Conservatives say they haven't filed a complaint, but that didn't stop
spokesman William Stairs from dusting off his Little Red Book for a
quotation: "Mao said power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The only thing coming out of this ad is electoral defeat."

Mr. Cohen said his organization had received some calls about the ad, but it was too soon to tell if they were legitimate complaints that warrant
investigation or merely listeners responding to some of the chatter about
the commercial on AM radio.

Nice attitude eh? If you listen to talk (conservative) AM radio, your opinions don't matter.

Friggin' socialists [/code]

[kowalski]

People you are walking into a trap. Rush Limbaugh often mentions the "kook left". They talk about this kind of stuff often. Even if there are subliminal messages drop it. Also why draw attention to the other guy's advertising.

[Psycho]

People you are walking into a trap. Rush Limbaugh often mentions the "kook left". They talk about this kind of stuff often. Even if there are subliminal messages drop it. Also why draw attention to the other guy's advertising.

Draw attention??? When the ad is played non-stop on TV, methinks people have seen it,...

But now they will look at the ad with cynical eyes. The ad lies about the aircraft carriers, the ad lies about taking away a woman's right to choose, the ad lies about polution across Canada if the Conservatives get elected and the ad lies about pistols having anything to do with the gun registry.

And know, people might realize that the Liberals fired a bullet at the viewing audience,...

I say, let's point out the Liberal lies,...