Fox News Caught Flashing McCain TV Subliminal

Fox News Caught Flashing McCain TV Subliminal

www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

FOX - says it all really.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is still bang out of order though, and is a clear, underhand attempt to influence through a propaganda tool.


www.prisonplanet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Very good spot!

So does this mean that its official - McCain is the chosen US president puppet for the NWO elite?

reply to post by mlmijyd

---

Only if the NWO runs FOX - and they surely couldn't be that dim, could they?

I wonder what the response would be if another channel flashed an obama or clinton subliminal - surely there would be calls for all sorts of nasty punishments and investigations.

Good find budski

I can't believe people still actually attempt this archaic form of subliminal messaging. Especially on sources that are easily replayed to verify the contents.


However, I'm not too sure it's really going to help McCain. You see, a subliminal message, without something to entice feelings of happiness or pride, will only end up re-enforcing your pre-existing thoughts on the subject matter.

Alternatively, if your sub-conscious picks up far enough, your memory will place that image of John McCain along side images of bombings, death toll figures, news about a coming recession... you get the idea.

They're not helping McCain out by placing his image up there... they're invoking your anger toward that image of him. Well, nobody ever said the FOX team was intelligent.


So, yeah, go ahead FOX news, continue placing his image up there... no no, don't read up on how you're supposed to use subliminal messages... you're doing a fine job... lol.

On a side note but still on topic, I wonder if subliminal messages are the reason they're making everyone buy a digital TV. Maybe somehow the message shown on a digital TV gets through clearer. Just a thought.

Peace

WOW very interesting thought I always asked my wife why it was so important to make everything digital....that is one good theory.

I'm not sure if you're referring to digitally transmitting the signal, or digitally displaying it.

If you're referring to digital cable, probably not. Digital cable has a habit of "ghosting" images that appear and go away too quickly. Leaving parts of it on the screen. Not very effective if you're trying to flash it quickly.
The older analog cable transmissions are still your best option for this.

However, a digital screen, yes. They can achieve a faster refresh than traditional CRT's, and with a much crisper image to boot. So delivering this form of subliminal messaging would be easier.

Wow!

I was highly skeptical about this being true, but by god it is!

Ridiculous attempt by Murdoch to serve his NWO puppet masters methinks.

reply to post by johnsky

---

Perhaps this subliminal is aimed at the floating voters who have some sort of empathy for mccain?

I'm not sure what the floating voter percentage is in the US, but I'd guess it's those who win the election for a particular candidate, and with that in mind, maybe it's aimed at them

What a childish and stupid animation.

I usually watch my local FOX affiliate for my daily fix of propaganda so I'll look for anything similar. I don't recall seeing anything recently though. If anyone else lives in the Detroit area and watches FOX 2, help me out with spotting this stuff.

On a side note, who are these idiots doing the digital editing? I'm not employed doing digital editing, nor is it my specialty, but I could do a better job of masking that image than they did. Subliminal images aren't supposed to be sitting there saying "HELLO LOOK HERE LOOK AT US!!!" like this one is. I know they attempted to make it subliminal but they failed miserably.

I don't consider AJ a credible source but its good he pointed this out so that (hopefully) people can see what a biased piece of BS FOX News is.

And for those that don't know much about digital editing, Paul Joseph Watson (article author) is right, its impossible for that to "accidentally" have happened. You edit on a time line with key frames. On the time line is layers, such as a layer for the FOX logo, a layer for the background color, a layer for the John McCain image etc. It can't just be slipped in unnoticed, and even if it could, it gets reviewed not only by the team of editors, but by the producers/directors of the news broadcast as well as the head of the news affiliate and probably even the FCC (although I'm not positive about this one).

It was deliberate. There's no way it was accidental.

[edit on 5/13/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]

I have analog, digital, and High def, on 3 diffrent sets. uUpon watching the same channel I found that Analog is the quickest, comes in first, digital is about 3 seconds behind and HD 1-2 seconds behind that.

So in reality, Digital and HD is really not live, its about 5-8 seconds behind, plus the FAA mandatory 10 second delay gives the MSM slmost 20 seconds advantage over reality.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

---

I agree with your post, however I'm not sure McCain even gets spotted without modern libs using modern computer technology to slow down the frame rate (and bring light to it all via the internet). Was it that obvious? There's no way I would have picked out McCain merely watching TV at the "normal" frame rate. Whether my subconscious would have is another question..

Anyways, I've never been impressed by FOX news or any of the major media outlets. They rather do a story on Obama not wearing a flag pin than covering Unconventional Vehicles in our skies.

They've been very fair to Hillary .. at least that what the dem blogs and the Hillary sites are saying.

As for Obama ... He's making too much fodder for anyone to ignore.
(Except MSNBC apparently)

QUESTION - I looked at the link - which picture is the one that showed up? The faint one or the very clear one? I'm confused as to which one it was.

Thanks.

The pic is quite hard to see unless you slow it down - but it's there alright.

A real subliminal.

OK everyone can calm down.

I believe my 30+ years as a professional videotape editor might be
able to qualify my personal opinion on this.

As is often the case, this particular "News Open" was produced so that it could be "keyed" or "supered" (super-imposed) over other footage. Typically images from upcoming, topical or timely news items.

For example Countdown with Keith Olberman on MSNBC opens each and every show in this format with the VO (voice-over) saying "Which of these news items will we be talking about.....blah....blah.....blah.") while visuals of upcoming stories flash about the screen.

Had the pre-packaged news open continued without cutting to live anchors on the set, there most likely would have been a "parade" or "montage" of newsworthy images in that portion of the screen. ( The pre-produced graphics open either contains an "alpha-channel" (kinda like Photoshop has) for a "hole-cutter" or it had "super-black" which would allow the images to "Key-thru", "Cut-thru' or "Bleed-thru" the graphics open. Obviously the T.D. (Technical Director) of the newscast cut out of the open graphics package a few frames (video has 30 frames per second) too late and hence the "quick cut" of McCain. Had he/she stayed with the open I am pretty certain other "newsworthy" images/footage would have followed.

(Perhaps a cat stuck in a tree. ha ha)

Flame me if you want. But that is how/why I believe this happened. I would bet money that the news open recorded from any other night would cut to live anchors at a different time and either show more of the "open" with montage or less of the "open" and no montage and prove my point.

Simply put, it was a random "button-push" by a human being during a live, local newscast.

If you are thinking this was "tachistoscope" Like flashing hot dogs and popcorn to a captive movie theater audience, that is quite something else.

en.wikipedia.org...

regards . . . kk

P.S. I am an Obama supporter BTW and I detest FOX news.



[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

OK, so that's one explanation for it being an accident, and one against.

I've never seen such an accident before, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

The most damning piece of evidence for me, is this is fox.

The John McCain picture is the only picture that appears. Any why are they showing that? What is relevant about that picture that it needs to be there?

Maybe you're right. Maybe someone pushed a button too soon and it cut to the anchors and cut off the animation. But from what I saw of the animation, I saw no indication that they were going to show any other images in that animation.

And that image is so out of place. It makes no sense whatsoever.

If we can find the whole animation and there are other images in there, then fine. It'll make more sense.

But as it stands now, the image appears so out of place that, factoring in that its FOX, it makes it seem like a failed attempt at subliminal imaging.

You have 30+ years on me in digital editing, as I am just beginning, but at least in my opinion, based on what I know, it seems out of place.

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

---

Agreed, this looks to be a tad more sinister than a mere "simple mistake"

Especially as fox is involved.

< Zombie Voice On >

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm......Must Vote For McCain.

< Zombie Voice Off >

I love a good conspiracy as much as anyone.
In fact upon further review I think I have confirmed something "more sinister."

Bad Editing. The two clips ( Graphics Open + Anchor Standup/Tease) were
edited together. (poorly)

Listen to the hard cut in the audio from Open to Anchors (music). Also, pay close attention to the animated Logo bug lower left corner during anchors clip. Under the rotating logo, the clock shows 10:14. If the show open is as it says, and began at 10pm. How did 13 minutes vanish? I will tell you how. The "magic" of editing. Someone spliced the two clips together thereby trimming off the end of Graphics open leaving a frame or two of the Geritol wonder-boy and married it to the Anchors clip 14 minutes into their segment.

Thanks for pushing me harder to seek the truth.

Sorry, my first analysis of a late "live-switch" was in error.

My assessment: The two clips were badly edited together.

Can you all see/hear what I mean?

Who did this or why?...... I have no idea.

BTW, I gleaned most of this from the "comments section" of link provided.
I wish I could take all the credit.

regards . . . . kk


[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]

[edit on 13-5-2008 by kinda kurious]