Entertainment desk
< February 20	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 21

1960s Subliminal US TV Sign-off

Can anyone confirm if the clips on Youtube showing subliminal messages during a 1960s US TV sign-off are real or not? Can you add the clip to a Wikipedia page referencing subliminal messaging if real. Eg: here is one example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y06RG_ffa0Q There are several versions of this - the original was posted by Naomi19631963 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZ_rQKAy7c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.243.222.24 (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny stuff. Even if it was a deliberate attempt at "subliminal messages" and not just the overactive imagine of the analyst, as far as I know the old idea of "subliminal messages" has long since been debunked. Those things go by too fast for the brain to pick them up. As indicated on the TV series "Brain Games", this kind of thing only works if it really jumps out at you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think subliminal persuasion is effective, check out this video. (The "reveal" at the end is remarkable) ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was really very effective, people doing subliminal adds would have taken over the world by now, with subliminal ads for their politicians, for example. StuRat (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been studied and used in marketing. Speaking of Brain Games: 2013 episode 5 ("Power of Persuation") — response priming and/or pre-attentive processing was featured, relating to subliminal stimuli. "This episode unveils the subtle tactics that advertisers, marketers and con men can use to get you to do what they want, without you noticing."^[1] ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [Modified:00:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)][reply]

I was thinking of the time they flashed a series of silhouettes in quick succession, and they were all a blur except for the outline of a big spider, which registered right away, even though it was on-screen no longer than any of the other images. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the stuff you're not consciously aware you've registered subconsciously that has the profoundest effect. This is the basis of hypnotic suggestion, which, if done effectively, the subject has no memory of ever hearing. Same with stuff you have no memory of ever seeing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just sounds bogus to me, like homeopathy. That one youtube, even when they slowed it down I couldn't see what they were talking about. Not much of a subliminal message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have no idea what "subliminal" means. See Subliminal stimuli, particularly the bit about it being beyond a person's threshold of conscious perception. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bugs has a point. If your conscious mind can't recognize the image slowed down, then your unconscious mind isn't going to recognize it, either. It's not like your unconscious mind has vast extra abilities to recognize things. And, again, if it was an effective advertising technique, then it would be far more widely used than it is. StuRat (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am slack-jawed with stupefaction at the amazing levels of ignorance I'm seeing on this subject:

It's not like your unconscious mind has vast extra abilities to recognize things. - that is the exact opposite of the truth, Stu.
... if it was an effective advertising technique, then it would be far more widely used than it is - subliminal advertising has been banned in many countries (as long ago as 1958 in the USA, UK and Australia) and has been condemned by the United Nations [2]), exactly because of the lack of transparency involved; potential consumers were being influenced to buy stuff without their being consciously aware of this influence.[3]

It would be good to see ref desk respondents, particularly those of long standing, not just shoot from the lip when they hear something that sounds "bogus" to them; nobody knows everything; a little bit of research would have been indicated first. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the BBC article gives a 66% success rate for "negative" words and only 50% for "positive". By that math, I can influence a coin flip with positive messages. And Judas Priest was found not guilty. There's probably more going on in our brain that we can't see. Just hard to measure, obviously. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my comments, Jack (because your sources do nothing to disprove anything I said) ? Your first source doesn't say the subconscious has an ability to perceive something that, even slowed down, you conscious mind could not. It listed English words, which, presumably, slowed down, the conscious mind could perceive. And in your 2nd source, the judge agreed with the defense that "the power of such a message to move a person to action has never been proven ". Occam's razor applies here. If you claim there is some insidious mind-control method that we are helpless to resist, that's the outrageous claim, so you need to provide the proof. I don't intend to submit proof that the Earth isn't riding on the back of a turtle either.

Oh, and what about all those nations where subliminal advertising is legal ? Shall we assume the entire public in those nations has been transformed into mindless zombies by endless subliminal ads by now ? StuRat (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the entire public. Just the most loyal viewers. And a suggestion doesn't (or shouldn't) make them "mindless". It's just an addition. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that puts it back in the realm of regular ads, which do the same thing, so nothing magical about them. StuRat (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but if I hear a man tell me to do/buy/kill something, I can counter with practical/financial/moral reasoning. If I don't know I was told, I can't argue. Pre-emptively avoiding the backlash isn't a surefire way to sell Armour hot dogs, but it's a good first step. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, naturally I read what you wrote. How else could I have quoted your sentences back at you? I at least provided some references. All you've done is argued the toss as if this were a debating society or a palaver with your buddies down at the bar. It's not that. It's a service for our clients, based on referenceable sources, not on what we individually happen to think is or is not the case. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to cut and paste something without reading it, but perhaps "comprehend" would have been a better word than "read", since you seemed to miss the critical bits. I also don't think that references which don't support your point are an improvement over no references. StuRat (talk)

You're still debating but providing nothing at all to support your strange~~ly uneducated~~ opinions. This is at the level of "Fly to the Moon? Nah, that's completely impossible". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the strange ~~uneducated~~ opinion, as your "sources", which don't support your statements, show. Here's a couple that support mine, since you seem incapable of looking them up yourself: [4], [5]. The last source even has the originator of the subliminal advertising myth admitting that he faked his data. I've now wasted enough time on this. StuRat (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be petulant. Why is it up to me to find sources to support what you're saying? That is surely your job. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You insulted me with that "uneducated opinions" bit, and then didn't seem to understand that since you are making the outrageous mind control claims, you are the one with the burden of proof. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." StuRat (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I uttered those words, you had not provided one single reference for anything you were saying. Not one. It was all just you intellectualising about why this sort of thing couldn't possibly work. They were your opinions; and speaking as someone who has achieved qualifications in Clinical Hypnotherapy and obviously studied this area of human interaction, in my opinion your opinions were uneducated. I see nothing insulting about saying that; it was just a statement of fact. Opinions can either be backed up by evidence, or they can't. In this case you hadn't at that stage provided any evidence, so I feel I was entitled to characterise your opinions as "uneducated". But I'm sorry if you were insulted, all the same.

Please point out where I made any claims about mind control, outrageous or otherwise. I talked about people being "influenced to buy stuff without their being consciously aware of this influence". This is exactly what was demonstrated (not buying, but designing a poster, logo etc) in the OP's video. They were given clues about what to draw, without ever being aware they were given those clues. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had no way of knowing what level of education I had on the subject, so calling my statements "uneducated opinions" was completely inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enuf. I withdraw the offending words. That leaves you with saying the same thing straight back to me, so you should now withdraw that as well. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. StuRat (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a rigorous study about this notion of flashing words in a frame or two of a motion picture and somehow having that imprint on your subconscious. If such stuff has been made illegal, either those lawmakers bought into this idea, or they didn't but passed the laws anyway "just in case" it might actually be possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer, but this is some detailed American legal background (if you have half a day to spare). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe in the flashing text kind of subliminal message, in case I implied I do. You need your conscious brain to read. Hidden sounds and images are what I'm about. I'll look for sources. Here's a 1992 patent for silent subliminal mind control, in the meantime. Not sure if it works, but it exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This study suggests we recognize sub- and supraliminally projected fearful faces in different parts of our brains. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the spider image jumps out you in the silhouette thing I mentioned earlier. We have programmed ourselves to be on the alert for anything we perceive as dangerous. The rest of it didn't look like anything scary, so it didn't register. Here's one way to test this subliminal wording hypothesis: You know those movie trailer commercials, in which the credits flash on-screen for like half a second at the end? How many of those credits are you able to capture and remember? And that's with the message being right out in the open. Words take longer to register than image do. I don't see any way someone this side of Superman or Commander Data could make out a few words in a single sentence that appears as one sentence is being rolled out and the next one rolled in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, back to the OP's query... I'm only finding references from the usual conspiratorial sources. If this were legit, I'd expect to find references from reliable sources; however, it is not implausible (especially during Hoover's era). On YouTube, "seeing ain't necessarily believing". ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Stu doesn't notice their effectiveness simply proves their effectiveness. μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect I'd notice when the subliminal ads wore off: "I'm a man with no baby in the house, so why exactly did I buy tampons and diapers ?". :-) StuRat (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm giving you a choice: either put on these glasses or start eatin' that trash can." InedibleHulk (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic blue lines

In the Olympics, there are blue lines painted on skiing and snowboarding courses. I have never noticed these before. When were these lines introduced, and why are they now necessary? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer the "when" part, but I can tell you why - they delineate the actual course itself and give assistance to skiers in poor light conditions. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they've been at previous Winter Olympics - this 2010 article says "The blue line is a relatively recent development in the long history of skiing". This article (8th paragraph down) suggests that they're only necessary on overcast days when the daylight is not good enough to enable the skiers to see the best line. Finally, this article says; "Back in the 1980s, before the blue lines became the norm, eight-inch pine boughs were shoved into the ground by track workers every few feet down the course to serve as visual cues". Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wanted (2008 film)

1. When Sloan found out that he was targeted by Loom of Fate, is it true that Sloan started making a list of Fake Targets?

2. If it's true that Sloan made a List of Fake Targets, then does it mean that those Fake Targets are Innocent People?

3. After Cross found out that Sloan made a List of Fake Targets, Cross became Rogue but how did Cross become Rogue & what did Cross do that was (Rogue Behavior)?

4. Since Cross became Rogue, does it just mean that Cross decided to Retire from the Fraternity?

5. Why didn't Cross tell the Fraternity Members the Truth about Sloan?

6. Since Cross killed Mr. X at the beginning of this Movie, is it because Mr. X was tracking down Wesley or is it because Mr. X killed atleast 1 innocent person?

7. (When Wesley told those Fraternity Members that Sloan's a traitor, why did those Fraternity Members decide to kill Wesley? Why didn't those Fraternity Members feel Sorry for killing Innocent People? I know that Vesper felt sorry for killing Innocent People, so that's why Vesper killed those Fraternity Members, that's why Vesper wanted to save Wesley's life, & that's why Vesper killed herself.)(76.20.90.53 (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Welcome to the Reference Desk, where we aim to provide referenced answers to factual questions. It's possible someone can direct you to a reliable source that can answer your questions about this film's storyline, or has seen the film and picked up some helpful details that you've missed, but it's also possible that the answers simply don't exist, particularly when you're asking about the motivations and mental processes of fictional characters in a movie. People who answer here ~~won't~~ aren't supposed to indulge in speculation. If it's explained in the movie (or perhaps in the comic book on which it's based), or if the writer has published a detailed plot summary somewhere, then great - maybe this desk can help you. If not, you're better off contacting the writer directly rather than asking people who have no special insight into the subject. - Karenjc (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind Speculation. I'll accept Speculation Answers.(76.20.90.53 (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]