Still don't believe in subliminal advertising?? Watch this.

I saw an advertisement for a plastic surgery clinic on a big movie screen (during the cycle of ads before the movie starts). The picture was a woman walking along the beach. I saw the ad cycle through 2-3 times but then the next time it cycled, I had layed my head on my boyfriend's shoulder next to me. Viewing it sideways, I could very clearly see the word "BEAUTIFUL" written in the sky of the image. The letters were done in a different shade of blue. You could only see it 'visually' by looking at it with your head tilted. Why would they hide it like that unless they wanted it to influence people without them realizing it.

reply to post by Throbber

'All communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver'

Does that include screams of terror?

Hi, Throbber. Long time no chat.

It's a fair question. No humouring required or attempted. Here we go

The benefits of a scream of terror to the sender are:

1. It might bring help.
   
   
2. Alternatively, it may serve as a warning to kin group members with whom the screamer may share genes.
   
   
3. It may deter a predator -- a slim chance, but it's there.
   
   
4. It may offer the sufferer a certain amelioration of his pain or fear
   

Now a question for you. What is the benefit of a scream of terror to the receiver?

reply to post by Astyanax


It lets the receiver know that whatever he or she is doing is working.

I was infact referring (even though i didn't, stupidly) to a situation in which torture was the topic - whereby if the person had a brain or at least some wits they'd realise that screaming for help isn't going to work, and the torturer wants to hear you scream.

In which case, the Torturer is the one benefiting the most from the communication, so the statement should technically be reversed.

I am somewhat disheartened by the fact that the only contradiction i could find was one as morbidly depressing as this, but i'm not afraid of being made out to be something i'm not.

reply to post by Throbber

I was infact referring... to a situation in which torture was the topic - whereby if the person had a brain or at least some wits they'd realise that screaming for help isn't going to work, and the torturer wants to hear you scream.

Yeah, but screaming is a reflex, and it evolved at a time when torture hadn't yet been invented. Actually, torturers don't so much want you to scream as want you to talk, so the screaming (in the end) is neither here nor there.

...but i'm not afraid of being made out to be something i'm not.

Eh?

reply to post by Astyanax


For the last bit i was referring to how one could view my post as a sign of severe morbid fascination with torture, death and the dark arts.

I was infact stating that people can perceive whatever the hell they want from what i communicate.



Oh, and trust me - the torturer wants to hear the victim scream; it's a sign of the victim's mental stability breaking down.

edit; Granted, screaming is a reflex, but then - so is scratching yourself, blinking, whirling your arms around when attacked by birds, running away from threats, and a whole lot more.

For many people, saying "Hi" when someone says Hi to you is a reflex.

Didn't someone once say that Body language makes up a large proportion of communication?

In which case, would signalling an aircraft for landing be more for the benefit of the sender or the receiver?



[edit on 1-4-2008 by Throbber]

Sorry if these have been posted already, but these were the first two cases of subliminals that came to my mind...

The classic Camel cigarettes image running since 1913. Looking closely, you will notice a man standing, hand on hip and rather "happy", in the front leg.



Clear outline of figure



Then there are the Marlboro subliminals...

This short video points out the three "K's" on the pack...

Video

In this image, you will see two figures in traditional white hooded garb of the notorious racist organization, holding up the "veni vidi vici" banner.





[edit on 4/1/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


I started lolling when he began tearing up the ciggy pack.

*highlights the Orobl' Jew subliminal advertising, noticable if you turn the Marlboro pack upside down*

Marlboro = Orobl' Jew.

It's supposed to sound like Horrible Jew, btw.

reply to post by Throbber

Marlboro = Orobl' Jew.

Croiky gubna! Vat is orobl. I knew vem Brits were in on it some'ow.

reply to post by jackinthebox




Your council estate slang has no effect on me, for i am the master.

reply to post by Throbber

I was infact stating that people can perceive whatever the hell they want from what i communicate.

Actually, though, they can't. They may, for their own reasons, pretend to misunderstand after the fact, but most human communication is fairly unambiguous. Besides, misunderstanding by the receiver does not affect the sender's intention (his hoped-for benefit). I repeat: all communications are for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver. This is actually something of a truism -- though I am still keen to discover exceptions to the rule.

would signalling an aircraft for landing be more for the benefit of the sender or the receiver?

The sender, obviously. The signalling functionary and the institution he represents (air traffic control, the airport authorities, whoever) are responsible for these communications, which are demanded of them not only by natural justice but by law. If they were not sent, the senders would fall victim not only to the odium of their fellow-humans but also to their own guilt and shame (for a social species, these are monstrous deterrents to misbehaviour). They would also suffer very severe penalties in law.

Oh, and trust me - the torturer wants to hear the victim scream...

Gosh. You haven't been going and torturing people, have you then?

Edit to add: If anyone sees NewWorldOver, would they please remind him that he hasn't yet posted any of those 'accredited sources' he talked about earlier?

[edit on 3-4-2008 by Astyanax]

there are laws in both the US and Canada with putting subliminal messages in advertisements , the FCC and CRTC claimed that they were both deceptive advertising, as it was banned after a board game was released.